Dear God, let the Jays win tonight so we can all be in XTC.

A must read article on the A's/Jays/Red Sox/Dodgers way of doing things

USA Today had a similar article about young Ivy League types making it in the front office last month.

Keith Law gets no love in these articles.

Given the Jays losing ways, "We all need a big reduction in amount of tears" seems pretty appropriate. Well done again, Tenobia.

I feel really bad that I can't come to the game tonight. What a matchup!

After the Toronto Blue Jays hired J.P. Ricciardi, another Beane protege, as their general manager in 2001, Ricciardi hired a full-time statistical analyst and fired half the full-time scouts.


I don't think this is really fair. It implies that the scouts were fired directly because the Jays hired a "full-time statistical analyst," who was meant to replace them. I very strongly doubt that these were cause-and-effect events; the scouts who were let go in all likelihood didn't understand the new organizational philosophy and either couldn't or wouldn't change. The "analyst" would probably have been brought on board regardless of whether all, some or none of the scouts had been let go. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story, etc.

All this stuff about "geeks," "analysts" and "computer teams" gets tiresome after a while. These are simply labels, and labels are what people apply to things they don't like or don't understand. What sets the A's and Jays apart is their devotion to innovation, the same way Branch Rickey's Dodgers were innovative. If Beane and Ricciardi are geeks, then so was Rickey. Those people in baseball who opposed the integration of the game in 1947 probably did so at least on race-related grounds -- but I'm sure there was also a strong element of plain old distrust of anything new. There will always be dinosaurs to mark the end of an era.

The willingness, even insistence, to try something new, or at least (as DePodesta says) to challenge the something old, is the key to progress -- and not just in baseball. Truly innovative organizations succeed, in every discipline and in every period. These organizations will make mistakes, of course, because trying something new is inevitably a trial-and-error process, and those who oppose these organizations will point to the mistakes as proof that these "geeks" are wrong or simply don't understand the game. But errors are not only part of an innovative approach, they're a critical element of it: the courage to fail is integral to good business. The best corporations reward employees who come up with a new project or system -- even if that project or system is a complete failure. It's the attempt, not the result, that the company wants to encourage.

One of the great things about being a Blue Jays fan right now isn't just that the team is coming around and headed for great things (3-9 notwithstanding); it's that the club is on the leading edge of an exciting paradigm shift within the game, the kind you only see every half-century. That's really why I'd much rather be a fan of this smart, innovative ballclub than of an organization that gets its fans excited by plowing $100 million into annual player salaries. Winning the game when you hold all the cards may be satisfying to those who crave victory for its own sake; but for me anyway, winning the game when the deck is stacked against you -- winning because you're smarter, braver and more dedicated than your opponents -- is way more fun.

Skydome could use a big reduction in the price of beer though.

There are a couple of great articles at THT this morning, though they aren't Jays-related. Steve Treder's comparison of the AL and NL concludes, and our pal Burley continues his quest to Free Benny Kauff.

http://www.bluejayscheerclub.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=15
All this stuff about "geeks," "analysts" and "computer teams" gets tiresome after a while.

I'd like to read some articles about how these new-style writers who use computers and spelling checkers and grammar checkers are tech-heads, and how the old guard of writers who use typewriters and rely exclusively on printed references for spelling, grammar and style are more pure and worthy of accolades and less likely to be called geeks.

Tonight's game: first, the cursed hat (COMN) is safely back in its closet. Second, the hat of last May is firmly on my head. Third, my wife cannot believe that I am going to a baseball game instead of watching Leafs-Sens game seven. But really, how many opportunities will I have in my life to see Pedro vs. Doc in the flesh?

Union Station will be busy this evening!

Two weeks ago, my wife and I were up in TO for a few days. On Wed we had a choice of a Raptors game, a Roadrunners game, or the Jays game. As much as I wanted to see a game in the New Ricoh Center the jays were a easy pick.

On Friday, we were at the CNE Homeshow and it is nice that the grounds are alive and well. But it is as though Exhibition Stadium was never there, save for a few of those outfield seats.

I think I am the one person who misses the place.

I think I am the one person who misses the place.

Actually, that's two of us ... I loved sitting (freezing) in sections 22 and 24, lower down. At least it was outside ...

SkyDome mostly SOUNDS awful, although the KingDome was worse ... I'm going tonight, though - take what you can get!

It was the North Grandstand for me--waiting in line at Gate 6, and quickly entering the stadium to get my seat in Section 35, parallel with the runway, roof over us!

All this stuff about "geeks," "analysts" and "computer teams" gets tiresome after a while. These are simply labels, and labels are what people apply to things they don't like or don't understand

I'm a bit of a nit-picker whenever I haven't had a chance to enjoy a few coffee, and I couldn't help but to write about the validity of the often-maligned labels. There is more to a label than the condescending uses listed above. Heck, our very basis for learning mathematics ("apples" and "oranges") use labels.

Labels are no more than a quick characterization, a way of telling the audience what you are talking about without having to prefice everything with an appendix of definitions which accompany contracts, treaties and the like. The problem lies with which particular labels that are being used (and in turn, the intended effect the writer wished to have), not that labels themselves. In the case above, the problem was the condescending tone of the labels used that were describing a group that we hold an affinity for.

I have NOOOooo idea why I just HAD to get that out this morning... but there it is. :)

Mmmmmm.... coffeee...

I think "Moneyball" has created some resentment in the baseball community, this includes writers & fans, because it implied that if you weren't doing it the A's way, your whole approach to scouting & player development was wrong. I also think that Jordan is right in that people who could not commit to the change in the organization's thinking were replaced with those who would. This frequently occurs whenever there is a change of management. There was a lot more made of the turnover because of the change in management styles and the above mentioned book.
Better analysys of players prior to drafting them needs to be done and statistics is certainly one component, but the player also needs to be analysed. Talley Haines is a good example of this, great AA stats but then we find out @ camp that he has a straight 85mph fastball.
It is ironic that the A's best position player does not fit their organizational philosophy, in that Chavez was a high school draft pick, and the same can be said of the Jays.

http://fanhome.com
Leafs are playing tonight!! Forget about $2 tuesday. GO LEAFS GO!

Three things -

Thing 1 : I have to give credit to the Expos for sticking with the now-freed Terrmel Sledge (TERRMEL SLEDGE IS FREE. HALLELUJAH.) Sledge started the year 0 for 22 before getting a hit last night, and it would have been so easy to throw him back in Prospect Prison. Kudos to Frank and Omar.

Thing 2 : Dean's take on Moneyball's confrontational approach is right. It went after the traditionalists pretty hard, no wonder they've had harsh words for it. I think the A's are all right and their critics all wrong, but that's me.

Thing 3 :

Leafs are playing tonight!! Forget about $2 tuesday. GO LEAFS GO!

johnny, when we're telling our grandkids about having seen Hall of Famer Pedro Martinez tangle head-to-head with Hall of Famer Roy Halladay, you'll be regaling yours with a story a long-forgotten first-round playoff series. If they come over and listen to our story instead, please don't feel bad!

HIJACK

With two out and nobody on in the bottom of the second, up 1-0 against a dominant starting pitcher and my #8 hitter at the plate, I'd rather have him make a 12-pitch strikeout than hit a first-pitch single.

Thoughts? Anyone agree or disagree?

Craig, I can totally see the value of the 12-pitch out, in terms of making the pitcher work and letting the other hitters see what he's got and what command he has that night. But I can't justify preferring an out to a hit; outs are too harmful and hits are too good. Baserunners are to be treasured above all. Even if the #9 hitter subsequently makes an out, then I've got my leadoff man starting the third inning.

My preference would be for the single, but I would rank the 12-pitch out to be the very next best thing, and valuable in itself.

I think absent the fact I'll have my #9 leading off, I am solidly in the opposite camp. That's the big problem to me and what's giving me the most pause. The 11 pitches are so valuable though - that's three hitters I save later on, maybe a third to half a run? The single versus the out is worth maybe 0.15 runs.

Is having the #1 hitter versus the #9 to lead off worth .15 runs? I really don't think it is. Tough one.

Anyway, the choice is totally artificial, of course, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

I'd say it depends on the pitcher. If it's somebody like Pedro, who definitely wears down, try to draw out the at-bat. But if you're up against Randy Johnson, who can throw 'til the cows come home, it seems kind of pointless.

Anyway, referring to Ricciardi as a "Stats-Guy" (or whatever) is just ridiculous. He's not some ivy-league grad who knows how to work a spreadsheet; he played minor-league ball and worked as a scout for more than ten years. Ricciardi probably has as many "Traditional Baseball Guy" credentials as anyone in the game.

CBC Sportsline Power Rankings put the Jays below the lowly Brewers. Ouch.

With two out and nobody on in the bottom of the second, up 1-0 against a dominant starting pitcher and my #8 hitter at the plate, I'd rather have him make a 12-pitch strikeout than hit a first-pitch single.

Totally disagree. A single:

a) Increases your chances of scoring in that inning, obviously. Don't forget the basic fact.
b) Increases (marignally) the odds that your #9 hitter will get a hit, since there will be a runner on.
c) Gets your #3 hitter up in the 3rd inning, rather than the 4th. Basically, it's one extra at bat at the top of the order.
d) Does not preclude a 12-pitch at bat for the #9 hitter.

Plus 11 pitches, on their own, do not sit a starter down sooner or later. Unless you can get a 12-pitch strikeout from everyone in your lineup, this one batter as a discrete event would achieve a lot more by not making an out (singling) than by drawing pitches.

Ideally, you'd want everyone who can get a hit to get a hit, and everyone who can't to get a 12-pitch strikeout.

A seperate question, by the way, and one with a far less obvious answer, is whether you want your #8 hitter swinging on the first pitch (assuming it's fairly hittable), and taking his 1/3 chance of a base hit rather than the benefits of taking a pitch, thereby adding a pitch thrown plus still having two chances to hit the ball.

I'm with Craig on the choice - sort of. I think that swinging at the first pitch in those circumstances is terrible. Only a few hitters do appreciably better swinging at the first pitch so you essentially have a 1 in 4 chance of a hit (maybe less against a top starter). Against a top starter early in a close game one, of the primary objectives of your weaker 8th and 9th hitters should be to get the pitcher to get his pitch count up. I would expect/demand that in those circumstances the hitters try and work the count which would require laying off the first pitch. As others have said, a hit is always better than an out from an outcomes perspective, but in this case a hit would be a lucky outcome of a bad approach. Coach and I had a mini-debate about this a few games back about a first pitch groundout from Woodward against a then sailing Jason Johnson. In sum, I would want the approach that says work the pitcher. The guy shouldn't be swinging on the first pitch.

Here's a related question: does a hitter's chance of successfully reaching base increase with runners on? That is, is OBP greater with baserunners in place than without? I'm sure this has been studied somewhere, but I wouldn't know where to look.

Besides, it's not like the Leafs are going to win anyway...

With two out and nobody on in the bottom of the second, up 1-0 against a dominant starting pitcher and my #8 hitter at the plate, I'd rather have him make a 12-pitch strikeout than hit a first-pitch single.

Thoughts? Anyone agree or disagree?

Depends on whether you're playing the Cubs or not.

It's not an extra 11 pitches b/c the pitcher has one less out. The #9 hitter's at bat can be expected to last 4 pitches and there's a chance that he gets on base and yet another hitter comes up and so on. I think the pitcher would take, on average, something like 6 pitches to get that final out. (.333 obp, 4 pitches/PA... 4/(1-.333) = 6)

So, if you choose single you have a greater chance of scoring this inning AND next inning and if you choose the long at bat the pitcher takes, on average, 5 more pitches to get through the inning. I think you'd be crazy not to take the single.

I have to give credit to the Expos for sticking with the now-freed Terrmel Sledge (TERRMEL SLEDGE IS FREE. HALLELUJAH.) Sledge started the year 0 for 22 before getting a hit last night, and it would have been so easy to throw him back in Prospect Prison. Kudos to Frank and Omar.

I have mixed thoughts on Sledge- on the one hand, I really root hard for him. On the other, I couldn't wait up until he cleared waivers in Alomar, so settled on Brady Clark. When I woke up at 9, he was gone, and Clark has caught fire.

Did anyone else see that JP said he wouldn't bring up Rios to jump-start the offense? We all knew this, but still it is nice to hear from our level-headed GM. I wonder if there are circumstances that would make JP change his mind- say they continue to struggle (Johnson in particular) and Rios catches fire. Probably not...

The thing to do right now IMO is drop the extra P and bring Pond back. Work a Johnson/Pond/Hermansen rotation until one of them gets hot, then hope for Rios or Gross late June.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=insider&prov=st&type=lgns
COMN for a very brief article on Vito Chiaravalotti.

I'm the quasi-proud owner of the Sledgehammer in Barfield (though at the moment he's hitting like Sister Sledge). I don't think it's accurate to heap praise on the Expos for sticking with him though. Right now, the Expos have little choice but to stick with him. With Nick Johnson and Carl Everett on the DL and Brad Wilkerson sliding to first, the Expos don't have many options but to play him. When Johnson comes back, only then will we see how much faith the Expos have in Terrmel. If he's sitting while Peter Bergeron gets at bats I'll be fuming.

What did give me hope is that Sledge played CF and led off last night. I like the foresight shown by the Expos there. I saw Sledge play CF in Edmonton last year and (subjective analysis warning) he didn't look out of place. If Sledge is competent in CF maybe Bergeron will be banished from the major league roster.

The guy shouldn't be swinging on the first pitch.

I agree, but that's not the question - it's "single versus strikeout".

Here's a related question: does a hitter's chance of successfully reaching base increase with runners on?

Yes. I can't find the study, but it does increase $H because it pulls the infielders toward the bases, opening up the right-side hole.

It's not an extra 11 pitches b/c the pitcher has one less out. The #9 hitter's at bat can be expected to last 4 pitches and there's a chance that he gets on base and yet another hitter comes up and so on.

Good point.

It's a interesting question, but I think the single's the clear choice.