Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

Coming off a difficult defensive inning in the bottom of the 9th in Cleveland, the Jays provided the faithful with a wonderful effort on Labour Day versus the Yankees. A stellar defensive play by Reed Johnson, throwing out Nick Johnson at 2nd base for a double-oops-single, snuffed out a potentially big top of the first for the Yankees. Roy Halladay was nearly flawless the rest of the way, and the Jays got offense from up and down the lineup to win going away.

That kind of baseball is why many of us thought of them as candidates to win 90 games this year earlier in the season. One problem has been the occasional stretches of poor, sometimes abysmal, defensive play. Contenders don't often beat themselves and the Jays' defense and bullpen has done too much of it.



Although the Jays now have several good defensive players, many quality hitters and a decent pitching staff (adjusting for park), they remain only an average ballclub. Their defence has been sub-par most of the year. This is discouraging, since the emphasis this spring was on playing fundamentally sound baseball. And when we think of fundamentals, we naturally think of execution on the defensive side of the ball.

As the following tables indicate, the Blue Jays have played arguably the worst fundamental baseball on defence in the American League this year. The three categories of performance - wild pitches and passed balls, opponent base stealing, and errors - are all areas we would expect a team focused on defensive execution to do well in. The problem with the blueprint is that most inexperienced players lack consistency in the field, even if they possess better defensive tools than most veterans.

The first table charts the performance of each American League team in three "fundamental" defensive categories. Wild pitches and passed balls are divided by the number of pitches thrown with men on base; errors are divided by number of balls in play (eliminating the putouts on strikeouts as well as extra - unnecessary - assists).


TeamPitches
men on
WP+PBper 100 PSBACSBIPERRORS E/100BiP
Seattle 7991430.5449273651 541.48
Minnesota 7924530.6754243862 721.86
Chicago 8308400.4848283633 782.15
Baltimore 8814480.5497323829 852.22
Texas9819 530.548136383686 2.24
Kansas City9249 630.6881353879892.29
Boston849255 0.6586323786872.30
Oakland7857410.52 68393671852.32
Anaheim8721530.61 62423719872.34
NY Yankees8412450.537634 3761922.45
Tampa Bay 9185670.7354373798 942.47
Toronto 8918 600.67 112 273862 102 2.64
Cleveland866551 0.59 683838621082.76
Detroit8862480.54 1094340071162.89
American League 121217 7200.591045 474 5321012352.32

According to play-by-play analysis, the value of a passed ball or wild pitch over the last 4 years is approximately 0.285 runs (see the last line of this table). Each wild pitch or passed ball above or below what a league average team would commit given the same number of opportunities is converted to runs by multiplying by 0.285. The results are in column 2 of the following table.

Similarly, a stolen base has a positive value of 0.195 runs and a caught stealing is worth -0.456 runs to the offence. The implied break-even point is about 70%. Turning that around (i.e. from the perspective of the defence), we can determine how many runs relative to league average the catchers/pitchers have gained or lost on opposition stolen base attempts. The results are in column 5.

Finally, the cost of an error depends on what type it is. Errors which allow the runner to reach safely cost the defence 0.546 runs on average. Errors that allow a baserunner one or more extra bases are assumed to cost 0.285 runs (the same as WP/PB). I don't know how many of each type actually occured, so I assumed a 50/50 split, which implies a cost to the defence of 0.415 runs for each error. Again, the number of errors above or below league average given the number of opportunities was multiplied by 0.415 to determine net runs on errors (column 7).


TeamWP+PB
net runs
rankoppSB%SB
net runs
rankErrors
net runs
rankTotal
net runs
Seattle +1.276.645+2.146+12.761+16.16
Chicago+2.651.632+2.795+2.623+8.07
Anaheim-0.349.596+6.221-0.289+5.59
Minnesota-1.6911.692-0.228+7.322+5.41
Oakland+1.612.636+3.653+0.088+5.35
Texas+1.513.692-0.339+1.265+2.44
Tampa Bay-3.5314.593+5.602-2.4311-0.36
NY Yankees+1.414.691-0.217-1.9510-0.76
Baltimore+1.247.752-5.3713+1.614-2.53
Kansas City-2.2913.698-0.7810+0.436-2.64
Cleveland+0.138.642+3.204-7.1013-3.76
Boston-1.2910.729-3.1412+0.367-4.07
Detroit+1.325.717-2.8811-9.5414-11.11
Toronto-2.0012.806-10.6614-5.1312-17.79
American League.688

The Blue Jays have been bad in all three categories this season - no better than 12th in any single category. No other team is in the bottom half of all three categories.

By my estimation, the Jays are weak defensively at three positions - third base, shortstop (when Bordick doesn't play) and catcher. Yet, this team isn't far away from fielding a good defence. Carlos Delgado has performed admirably at first base. Orlando Hudson was error-prone earlier in the year but has since settled down and is athletic enough to handle second. Reed Johnson has greatly improved the outfield defence with his accurate throwing and Vernon Wells has great range and is improving his routes to the ball. The hope is that Kevin Cash will limit the opposition running game, but he's at least a year away from being able to do that. Wilson and Myers are probably a little below average in the throwing department. I like the way the middle infielders turn the double play.

The pitchers need to help the catchers out. Kelvim Escobar, in particular, seems to forget about baserunners (18 SBA in 20 tries this year). I hesitate to suggest any changes to Roy Halladay's game, but baserunners are 23 of 26 off him in steal attempts in 2003. With two starters like Kelvim and Roy, an effort ought to be made to find other starters who are adept at cutting off the running game. Hendrickson, despite being slow to unwind, could be one of those starters - if he comes up with a deceptive pick-off move.


Growing Pains | 39 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Rob T - Monday, September 01 2003 @ 07:15 PM EDT (#93042) #
I've just recently discovered your site and am kicking myself for having not been better informed. Great comments and it was entertaining to see the fuss made by the Star over the J.P. interview.

With regard to the error analysis, I agree, they will improve, in time. This team will really be something to watch in '04 and '05. The turf issue though, is one that should really be considered, beyond its obvious impact (balls skipping past defenders).

With a young squad, judgement on positioning, routes to balls, timing and even instinctive glove location must be a nightmare. From home to away, the repetition learning curve must be more difficult than that of damn near any other team in the league. Save for the Twins, whose vets are impressingly adept at not missing a beat, or a ball for that matter.

Anyway, keep it up. Lord knows that Rich Griff and his peers seem more and more lost with each passing game.
_Rob C - Monday, September 01 2003 @ 07:59 PM EDT (#93043) #
Great analysis, Robert (what's with all the Robs here anyway?). You mentioned third base as a problem - has Hinske always had that hitch in his throwing motion where he has to pat his glove with the ball every single time? He's got to be wasting nearly half a second with that, and then if it's a fast runner, he has to hurry his throw, which is not something he does well anyway. Will Butterfield be dragging Hinske to daily throwing practices over the off-season?
robertdudek - Monday, September 01 2003 @ 08:08 PM EDT (#93044) #
I think Hinske's throws will improve, but they aren't consistently accurate at present. He's got quick reactions, but is slow when he needs to run in on the ball. Watching Eric Chavez really gives you a feel for the difference between a competent 3B (Hinske) and a really good one.
_rodent - Monday, September 01 2003 @ 08:58 PM EDT (#93045) #
Is the Jays defense worse at home? Earlier in the season it seemed to be more combustible on the road, but now? Very nice, and I share the concern for Hinske's Tiantian throwing mechanics.

They did look pretty good today tho. Roy has power to sooth.

Does Enrique Wilson cheat like crazy to the hole, or does his frequent leftward bias reflect a larger strategy?
Mike Green - Monday, September 01 2003 @ 09:41 PM EDT (#93046) #
I can't agree that Hinske is a competent defensive third baseman at this stage of his career. He is in my view clearly the Blue Jays greatest defensive weakness; it is no accident that the team performed better when he was on the DL than after or before. Both before and after his hand surgery, he has been terrible at starting double plays (because of both his iron glove and his throwing motion), and very vulnerable to the bunt in front of him. Detroit especially was able to exploit this weakness of Hinske's in one series at Comerica.

Perhaps he will develop the skills to be adequate, but I honestly don't see this as too likely.

Hinske's lack of range and his inability to start the double play have, in my view, significantly impacted on both Hendrickson's and Lidle's performances this year. Both are better pitchers than they appear, albeit not incipient Cy Young contenders.
robertdudek - Monday, September 01 2003 @ 10:01 PM EDT (#93047) #
Mike Green might be right about Hinske...

I was looking at fielding stats at ESPN. Especially interesting are the zone ratings for the various Jays and for the team at each position.

POS AL rank ZR (player with 150+ inn)
OF 3rd .902
IF 10th .813

1B 7th .833 (Delgado .836)
2B 5th .836 (Hudson .822)
SS 10th .847 (Woodward .829, Bordick .887)
3B 13th .721 (Hinske .698, Bordick .884)

LF 3rd .903 (Stu .897, Cat .867, Reed .976)
CF 3rd .919 (Vernon .917)
RF 6th .877 (Reed .868, Cat .833, Kielty .891)

Catchers INN   SB  CS  %  PB  SBatt/9inn
Myers 559.7 47 12 .797 2 0.95
Wilson 521.3 56 14 .800 7 1.21
Cash 95.0 4 1 .800 1 0.47


Also of note is that the Jays have the highest GO/FO ratio in the league. ESPN has it at 1.42 and mlb.com has it at 1.35. This makes infield defence, a liability this year, more important for them than it is for the average team.

Rodent,

I couldn't find home/road splits for errors, but the Jays have allowed 36 unearned runs in 602 innings at home (0.54/9IP) and 34 unearned runs in 610 innings on the road (0.50/9IP).
Gitz - Monday, September 01 2003 @ 11:50 PM EDT (#93048) #
Darn it. I had a great comment prepared about Kirk Cameron and Alan Thicke, but, alas, wrong thread.
_Leo DiCaprio - Monday, September 01 2003 @ 11:55 PM EDT (#93049) #
Gitz,

What about me? I'm a mega-star now, but I had humble beginnings too!
_Matt - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 01:24 AM EDT (#93050) #
Hinske's D has significantly affected Lidle and Hendrickson's performance?

Pleeeeease.
Coach - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 08:15 AM EDT (#93051) #
Contenders don't often beat themselves and the Jays' defense and bullpen has done too much of it.

Nobody considered the Jays "contenders" this year, and as J.P. has explained, he can't afford Seattle's defence and bullpen. The decision to try to win games 9-8 instead of 3-2 is based in large part on economics -- it's easier to find solid offensive contributors than multi-dimensional stars on such a tight budget.

The bullpen will eventually be addressed internally, as some of the talented arms in the system reach the majors. Catching, by the time it's Quiroz backed up by Cash, will be a strength. As Robert points out, the outfield is already improving. The left side of the infield remains a concern, but it's way too soon to write off Hinske, or even Woody. We shouldn't forget there are a couple of excellent shortstops currently leading their teams into the FSL and EL playoffs.

Though the ninth-inning throwing errors in Cleveland cost the team a win, it's not always that obvious. I'd be interested in a game-by-game review of "blame" -- Loss Shares? -- that includes the hitters firing occasional blanks, the defence, the rotation and the bullpen. We tend to do a lot of that in the game threads, and I might do some purely subjective research along those lines after the season. Today, I have more important things to do, like holding my breath in anticipation of the new logo.
robertdudek - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 08:34 AM EDT (#93052) #
Coach,

Of course we weren't expecting contention this year; I was merely pointing out one of the things that separates the Jays FROM contention at the moment: something that needs to be addressed over the next few years.

Can he afford Oakland's defence and bullpen? Anaheim's bullpen last year was Percival and a bunch of cheap pitchers. Conventional sabermetric wisdom has it that a bullpen is the easiest part of a contender to build on the cheap.

Minnesota has scored well in these categories over the last few years and they have had one of the youngest everyday lineups in the league (with a veteran pitching staff).

I think these results reflect a conscious choice on the part of J.P. and company. Instead of finding very good defensive players with lesser bats, he chose Hinske and Woodward to man two important defensive positions. He could have had Izturis at short at the same price as Woodward - less offence, better defence. Woodward might have slid to 3B and become a good fielder at the position.

Personally, I think he made the right decisions, but it would be folly not to be aware of the negative side of those decisions. But in building a good ballclub, it's important not to have a glaring weakness, because good opponents will exploit it to the hilt.
Craig B - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 08:50 AM EDT (#93053) #
Robert, one thing to remember re Zone Rating is that because it just tracks zones, and not how hard a ball was hit, turf teams will have a slight tendency to be better in the outfield and worse in the infield. The reason is that the turf makes it slightly easier to get to flyballs in the gaps, but grounders scoot faster, making infield play tougher.

Both before and after his hand surgery, he has been terrible at starting double plays (because of both his iron glove and his throwing motion)

Mike, I agree. Hinske's biggest defensive weakness (more than the poor zone coverage, more than the large number of errors) is turning the double play; he just doesn't do it. He has 23 double plays in 237 career starts at third base. The only third basemen in recent memory who are similarly bad at turning the DP are Joe Randa (his DPs have fallen off a cliff the past two years; he is very sure-handed and has good range), Chipper Jones (still better than Hinske), and to some extent Corey Koskie (still considerably better than Hinske). Hinske's the worst regular third baseman at turning the DP in quite a while.
Dave Till - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 09:53 AM EDT (#93054) #
Robert, one thing to remember re Zone Rating is that because it just tracks zones, and not how hard a ball was hit, turf teams will have a slight tendency to be better in the outfield and worse in the infield.

I seem to recall that Roberto Alomar's Zone Rating was poor while he was here, and Candy Maldonado's was above average.

My subjective view of Hinske's defense is that at least he is better than Sprague, who was unable to backhand balls and couldn't range more than a step or two to his left. Hinske is a bit more mobile than that. Hinske can't handle slow rollers and bunts well, but not many people hit slow rollers and bunts, so I think the Jays can live with that.

Eventually (perhaps soon), Hinske will lose some of his mobility, and that will drive him off 3B for good. I'm not sure whether he can hit well enough to hold down a 1B/DH spot; at that point, he risks falling into the Domingo Martinez Black Hole, from which few emerge.
Mike Green - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 10:38 AM EDT (#93055) #
To Coach:

Russ Adams is not an excellent shortstop. He just turned 23, and has not yet successfully hit double A pitching, and it took him 2 tries to hit single A pitching at age 22. He has made an amazing number of errors this season, but does have good range. Yes, he is a prospect, but he's got a lot to work on and he's no spring chicken.

Aaron Hill on the other hand is off to a better start, and is a fine prospect. He is 21, and performed better at Dunedin than Adams did last year. I see Hill as the third baseman of the future (and Woodward as the shortstop of the future). Unfortunately, the future is likely to be in 2005 or 2006.
_Spicol - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 10:49 AM EDT (#93056) #
He has 23 double plays in 237 career starts at third base...Hinske's the worst regular third baseman at turning the DP in quite a while.


Your last sentence might be true but you're going to rely on raw double play totals to make that determination? Hinske's double play totals are going to be affected by a lot of things: the number of ground balls hit to the left side (greatly affected by innings pitched by Jays' LHP) and runners on base to name two.
_Spicol - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 10:55 AM EDT (#93057) #
Russ Adams is not an excellent shortstop. He just turned 23, and has not yet successfully hit double A pitching, and it took him 2 tries to hit single A pitching at age 22.

The jury is out on Adams, I think that's clear. He may pull a Gabe Gross and show us in 2004 why he was so highly regarded or he might not develop at all. But one thing he does have going for him is his head, which got rave reviews in spring training. It might be there that the Walt Weiss and Mike Bordick comparisons hold water. As stated well by JP in his interview, a player can overcome some limitations and add value through intelligence. As of yet, there's no stat for the head (not counting Bill James' Percentage Player Index, which I have issue with).
Mike D - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 11:02 AM EDT (#93058) #
Robert, this is excellent stuff.

And I agree with your point entirely. It might be unreasonably expensive and luxurious to spend the money necessary to upgrade the bullpen and defence from replacement-level to superior. But it shouldn't be an unreasonable expense (or an additional expense at all, with savvy decisionmaking) to upgrade the bullpen and defence from wretched to replacement-level. If Oakland can invest playing time and money in defence and relief pitching, why can't Toronto?

The "Loss Shares" accrued by nibbling relievers and sloppy "fundamental" plays have been a failing for which J.P., Carlos et al ought to be held accountable.

Let's celebrate the results at the plate and on draft day. But this study provides ample reasons not to be complacent or too self-congratulatory.
Craig B - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 11:03 AM EDT (#93059) #
going to rely on raw double play totals to make that determination?

Your point is well-taken. I didn't bother giving the adjustments because the raw totals say everything; besides, there's no amount of reasonable adjustment that can make Hinske's DP totals look good.

Over Hinske's two years the Jays have allowed an above-average number of baserunners, have had an above-average number of ground balls, and do not have unusual numbers of innings by lefthanded pitchers.
Gerry - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:04 PM EDT (#93060) #
Interesting reading. If I remember my Bill James data, a 10 run swing equals one win. Therefore the Jays, with a score of -17, have almost 2 wins less than an average team. This year 2 wins are not the difference between the playoffs or not. In the future they could be.

JP has acknowledged that he cannot afford everythung and defense is one of the neglected skills. Oakland is often perceived to be the same. However Oakland's defense is average. Their SB and WP+PB scores are very good. In part it is a better starting staff and, for the SB's, Zito, Mulder and Lilly are lefties.

There does not appear to be a strong co-relation to on the field success. Of the 7 teams with playoff hopes, three have negative scores. When we look at the defense scores the playoff teams are ranked 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10. The defense scores may be more important than the WP+PB or SB totals.
Pistol - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:08 PM EDT (#93061) #
Aaron Hill on the other hand is off to a better start, and is a fine prospect. He is 21, and performed better at Dunedin than Adams did last year.

Hill hit .286/.343/.345 in Dunedin this year.
Hill hit .361/.446/.492 in Auburn this year.

Adams hit .231/.321/.306 in Dunedin last year.
Adams hit .354/.464/.469 in Auburn last year.

Given the weak draft pool in 2002 and a strong draft this past year I think both players are right about where they are expected to be. Hill has a little more pop than Adams, but I don't think that he's shown that he's a much better propect than Adams at this point. I would guess that Hill will start the season in Dunedin next year and move up to AA in mid-season.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#93062) #
Is there any hope of a contening infield of Hinske at 1B, Hudson at 2B, Hill at short, and Adams at third? I ask because I, admittedly, am not very knowledgable about the defensive tools of the younger two (Adams and Hill) . Would Hill be better off at 3rd than Adams? I see Phelps as a career DH who can fill in a little at first and maybe as an emergency catcher. Sort of like BRad Fullmer, only a better hitter (I think Phelps' worst prime season should be right around Fullmer's best with the Jays). I tlaked about trading Phelps earlier in the season, but only if he garnered a 1B for Roy Halladay's 1A. I still feel the same way (about Phelps or Rios). I'd rather not trade either, but if it brings a good enough pitcher than I would be for J.P. pulling the trigger.
Craig B - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 02:14 PM EDT (#93063) #
Is there any hope of a contening infield of Hinske at 1B, Hudson at 2B, Hill at short, and Adams at third?

Sure, if your outfield is Bell, Moseby and Barfield.
_Spicol - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 02:47 PM EDT (#93064) #
I didn't say it before but this is great stuff, Robert.

Errors which allow the runner to reach safely cost the defence 0.546 runs on average. Errors that allow a baserunner one or more extra bases are assumed to cost 0.285 runs...I don't know how many of each type actually occured, so I assumed a 50/50 split, which implies a cost to the defence of 0.415 runs for each error.

My impression is that you're quite low on your average cost to defense number. Some errors occur that allow a runner to advance two bases (esp. catcher throws on steal attempts) and still others allow a batter to reach safely AND lets baserunners advance on the same play.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 02:53 PM EDT (#93065) #
Craig B. , would that infield defense be any worse than what we see today (with Woodward instead of Bordick...so the Jays' early season defense).
Craig B - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#93066) #
Donkit, I was thinking offense, not defense... my mistake. That infield just doesn't (won't) hit enough to move you into contention. Maybe with two big bats in the outfield, a decent catcher and a big-hitting DH.

Defensively, that looks like a decent infield. Hinske wouldn't hurt you that much at first, though I might like to try him in right field first. Hinske has a good arm, which is wasted at first. All in all, I'd rather let him work on his fielding at third; he has shown a willingness to work really hard and players do get better with time - especially in spots where speed isn't a major factor.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 03:35 PM EDT (#93067) #
Craig B. - I'm thinking the Jays infield won't have to be good enough to carry an offense in a few years, they just have to avoid having a black hole or two. Hinske will be as productive a big leaguer as we've always expected I think. Hudson will improve to a solid bottom of the order hitter. I think Hill will be a very god 2/7 guy and Adams is the only offensive question mark in my mind, but if he can be a good 8 or 9 that'd be alright. If he could leadoff even marginally well, that would be great. The Jays will have Phelps, Wells, Rios, Quiroz, and Gross/Kielty filling out the rest of the spots. I think that that's a pretty good offense (assuming A] those players develop as expected over the next two years and B] they aren't traded).

Adams
Hill
Wells
Phelps
Hinske
Quiroz
Rios
Gross
Hudson

or if Kielty is there ahead of Gross, leadoff with Hill bat Kielty second and slot Adams in the 8 or 9 hole.

If Wells, Phelps, Hinske, and Hudson enter their true primes together in two years, and the young guys are ready to contribute even solidly I htink it's an acceptable offense. I tmight push the contending timetable back to 2007 from 2005 (which makes what we think we know now about our pitchers almost irrelevant) but I think it's good enough to win a pennant nonetheless. Of course, if we can keep Delgado, leave Hinske at third and take Adams (or Hill if he hits a lull in his development) out of the lineup, the Jays are truly ready to contend.

Hill
Hudson
Wells
Delgado
Phelps
Hinske
Quiroz
Gross
Rios

After Hill and Hudson that is like a video game lineup; you're not sure where to slot in all of the good hitters. I think Delgado-Phelps 4-5 is the only sure thing. I won't even touch on the pitching, my predictions have been bold and broad enough here ;-)
robertdudek - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 03:41 PM EDT (#93068) #
Spicol,

That .546 is from the chart, which is the observed average value of any safe of error event (includes other baserunning advances).

An error on an SB attempt would be scored a stolen base and the runner advancing to 3rd on the error (i.e 1 base advanced on the error). You can't assume the throw will nail the base stealer, so no matter how bad the throw no error is credited unless the runner takes an additional base to the one he was trying to steal. The exception would be when the 2B/SS makes the tag and drops the ball. On that play, I'm pretty sure it goes as a CS and runner safe at 2nd on the error (again 1 base for the error).

If anyone has a better source for estimating the value of a typical error, don't hesitate to let us know.
_Spicol - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 03:50 PM EDT (#93069) #
That .546 is from the chart, which is the observed average value of any safe of error event (includes other baserunning advances).

Right...you said that too and I missed it. (It was even in the quote I copied. It's soooo Monday to me.)
Mike Green - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 04:10 PM EDT (#93070) #
To Spicol:

One of the things that drives equality-seekers crazy is that when ballplayers were asked "who gets the most of their ability?", and "who gets the least from their ability?", the answers to the first question had a list of white ballplayers, and the answers to the second question had a list of black and Latin ballplayers.

So to counter those annoying attitudes among ballplayers, how about using Ozzie Smith, Joe Morgan and Omar Vizquel as examples of ballplayers with a good head?

One characteristic of ballplayers with good heads is they rarely make a large number of errors. Adams does not display this characteristic yet (35 errors in 130 games this season). I tend to view this as more significant than the pronouncements of JP (who does seem to pump his favorites- see his comments on Arnold and Griffin in the interview on this site) on the point.

To Pistol:

I don't agree that the difference between Adams and Hill is insignficant. Hill has performed better at a younger age.

You also suggest that the draft of Adams resulted from the weaker 2002 pool. I did not criticize JP for drafting Adams (I actually agree with the decision), rather I took issue with Coach's description of Adams as an excellent shortstop. To put it in perspective: at age 23, Chris Woodward went .292/.378/.395 at Syracuse, and had a cup of coffee in TO; Adams is a long way from that.
_Spicol - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 04:30 PM EDT (#93071) #
So to counter those annoying attitudes among ballplayers, how about using Ozzie Smith, Joe Morgan and Omar Vizquel as examples of ballplayers with a good head?

Considering that Russ Adams hasn't been compared to those players, and has been compared to Mike Bordick and Walt Weiss, I'll stick with my choices. But those are all smart ballplayers, yes, especially the first two.

One characteristic of ballplayers with good heads is they rarely make a large number of errors. Adams does not display this characteristic yet

Nor can we say that today, his head is of major-league-quality. What I'm saying is that this could be one of his chief assets post-development and the pronouncements we've heard from players and front office alike indicate he's on his way there. I suppose if we can figure out a stat for the head, we can figure out a kind of MLE for it, but in reverse, with realistic assumptions that this stat will improve as a player becomes experienced and gets closer to the majors.
robertdudek - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 04:54 PM EDT (#93072) #
Minor league shortstops almost always make a lot of errors. Part of it is the quality of the fields (lot's of bad hops); part of it is lack of experience. Alex Gonzalez made a lot of errors all the way up through the system: after two years in Toronto nobody was calling him error-prone.
Mike Green - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 05:17 PM EDT (#93073) #
Returning to Robert Dudek's original point, it is quite clear to me in 20-20 hindsight that the Jays would have performed better this year had they used a Bordick/Howie Clark platoon at third rather than Hinske. This was not of course a practical alternative, as the Jays had just committed to a long-term contract with Hinske, and who knew at the start of the season that his defence would not improve in his sophomore season. However, it will be a test of JP's ability as a GM if it becomes clear next year that Hinske's defence is not improving significantly. Will JP cut his losses or will he hold firm on his original judgment?

Others have suggested that the sorry state of the Jay bullpen results from the team's budget. This is only partly true. While signing a name-brand closer was obviously out of the question, better veteran middle relief choices than Sturtze, Creek and Tam were out there at less cost (Steve Reed-$600,000). I and others said so on the official site before the season, and it was not a close call. So while we give credit to JP for one good and one great draft (and some good Rule V selections-Lopez and Sequea), we should also point out that his veteran pitching acquisitions have not turned out well, and this was not simply due to budgetary restraints.
Mike Green - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 05:32 PM EDT (#93074) #
To Robert Dudek:

No one described Alex Gonzalez as a smart ballplayer either.

As for the suggestion that it is the poor quality of the field that is driving Adams' error rate, I have some doubt about this. If you check the stats, you'll see that it certainly didn't affect the regular third baseman in Dunedin, Rob Cosby or the regular second baseman in Dunedin, Manuel Mayorson, or the regular second baseman in New Haven, Dominic Rich. Their error rates are typical, actually pretty good, for their position. The only infielder in New Haven with a poor error rate was Simon Pond, but he was a 1B/OF converted to 3B, and the conversion obviously didn't take.

I realize that Adams gets to a lot of balls because of his quickness, and he may very well turn out to be a good defensive shortstop, but the judgment whether he has a good head for the game will have to wait.
_R Billie - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 05:58 PM EDT (#93075) #
Defence would be the last thing I'd be worried about with Adams. Seeing him play in spring training, he looks like he'll be fine in the field though second base might be a better position for him with his throwing arm.

I don't know, maybe it's just me but I still see a guy who can do some very useful things and like Griffin and Gross deserves another full year before we write him off as a utility player. If he shows no significant improvement in AA and AAA next year, we can conclude that he's hit his ceiling as a generic middle infielder.

But I do see some David Eckstein in Adams and he certainly has better size and power potential down the road. He's also ahead of where Eckstein was on his development path, making AA a half season earlier. There's no doubt that Hill is the better overall prospect across the board; but I still think Adams can be a decent major league regular as long as you aren't expecting Barry Larkin.
_R Billie - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:09 PM EDT (#93076) #
I think Adams is a stretch at SS because of his arm but there are lots of players who don't have great arms but play shortstop (David Eckstein immediately springs to mind). 35 errors in 130 games isn't good but it's not prohibitively bad for a first 1.5 year minor leaguer either.

I also would not equate error total with "smarts" or "instincts". Robbie Alomar was famous for high error totals before he settled his game down on Toronto's turf. I think defensive consistency is a matter of repetition and experience. Of course, it could also be that Adams just doesn't have the tools to play short in which case he'll likely move to second where he mostly played late in his college career.
_jason - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:27 PM EDT (#93077) #
These defensive weeknesses may be the reason the Jays have trouble with the likes of Tampa and Detroit. Nobody expects the Yanks or Red Sox to bunt towards third or start running the bases with abandon - their offences aren't built that way. But Lou Pinella saw that a)you could do just that against the Jays and b) his offence being what it is was ideally positioned to attempt such a strategy. Trammel, seeing that it worked, emulated Pinella's system and he succeeded.
The Jays powers that be stress that the team should not give away outs, or run themselves out of innings. But, if on defence you can't turn those bunts into outs and you allow stolen bases at a statistically profitable margin, of course the opposition is going take advantage of it.
robertdudek - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:42 PM EDT (#93078) #
You'll have to check the "normal" number of errors an A ball and AA shortstop makes.
Pistol - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:57 PM EDT (#93079) #
To Pistol:

I don't agree that the difference between Adams and Hill is insignficant. Hill has performed better at a younger age.

You also suggest that the draft of Adams resulted from the weaker 2002 pool. I did not criticize JP for drafting Adams (I actually agree with the decision), rather I took issue with Coach's description of Adams as an excellent shortstop.


My point was that Hill should be a better prospect than Adams, and he has been, although the difference isn't that great.

Said another way, besides a little extra power from Hill they are pretty similar to me.

Where's the easiest place to find DOBs for minor leaguers?
Craig B - Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:40 PM EDT (#93080) #
Pistol, DOBs, draft info *and past year's minor league stats* for all minor leaguers are on The Baseball Cube at sports-wired.com.

I usually google "Baseball Cube [name]" and if that doesn't get a hit, it brings up one of the Cube pages from which I can enter a selection.
Growing Pains | 39 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.