I send Batista out to start the 8th inning, take him out after two get on.

Barry Bonds Watch

Bonds Watch is obviously putting a lot of pressure on Barry; he has entered something of a slump, going just 3-for-9 in his last six games with no home runs. In last night's 12-3 loss to Atlanta, Barry went 0-for-2 (a flyout to center and a foulout to the catcher) with two walks. He scored one run after walking in the 8th inning. The game was closer than it looks; Atlanta led just 5-3 going into the ninth.

Barry also made his first error of the season in the ninth inning, allowing a runner to score when he bobbled a double hit by Jesse Garcia.

Jaret Wright went right after Bonds after walking him on four pitches his first time up; Wright got the flyout on a 1-2 pitch and the foulout on an 0-2. In all, Barry saw sixteen pitches, nine balls and seven strikes - five swings.

Barry's pace has slackened somewhat during his mini-slump:

 G   AB  R   H  2B 3B HR RBI  BB SO SB  AVG  OBP  SLG   OPS
154 355 139 170 39  0 69 154 247 39  8 .478 .692 1.174 1.866 

The Giants and Braves conclude their series tonight at 10:05 Eastern. The game's on ESPN2 for Americans or the satellitically endished.

They had only 1 shot to get Adams in because he had warmed up twice on Monday and had told Tosca that if he warmed up last night he would have to get in the game at that point or he would be done. JP questioned the decision to leave in Batista to start the 8th because in JP's words he had been scuffling most of the night. I would have went de Los Santo till Ford, then Lightenberg if needed if not Speier for the 9th.

Candiotti (who is pretty great btw) called it in the seventh when he noticed that Batista was tired. They should have gone with Adams halfway through the seventh (though Batista's 7th was quick) and gone Lightningberg to close it (if only because he's on my fantasy squad).

I KNOW these lyrics. It's totally the Smiths but I haven't been able to pin it down exactly.

It's not the Smiths.

My comments are in the game thread. I would have pulled Batista after 6. Seeing as he got 3 outs and allowed 1 baserunner after that, I can hardly ascribe much blame to Tosca for this loss.

But to answer Moffatt's question, if for some reason I'd left Batista in for the 7th, I'd have brought Kershner in to start the 8th for 3 batters, and then Speier for the remainder. Somehow, I doubt that the result would have been different.

On the other hand, Dave Berg in the outfield and batting sixth is not a good situation. This has now happened twice. Berg's line in those games is .143/.143/.143. Berg is a utility infielder. To use him as an emergency outfielder in extra innings or something is OK, but this is not. Moffatt and others have indicated that they'd prefer if the roster had a right-handed bat (I'd add that it should be an OF), rather than a 7th reliever, and I concur.

Its pretty close - its Morrissey 'Driving your girlfriend home'

Yep. Just trying to mislead EZ a little by not telling him how close he was. ;)

Adams in the 8th, Speier in the 9th...if Adams can't go Frasor takes his spot - De Los Santos and Ligtenberg on hand as LOOGYs and ROOGYs respectively if needed - Kershner is long man who would open up the 10th if needed and go as much as 4 innings - Nakamura fills any other role.

I wouldn't have let Batista start the 8th. He looked done.

I had a bad feeling about this game throughout. I turned it off after two guys got on in the 8th, hoping that things would work themselves out somehow. Oh well.

I honestly can't say I'd have done much different. Yes, Batista probably should have come out earlier, but that's not what lost the game. It was the guys that came in after Batista -- Ligtenberg & Speier, who have been fantastic so far -- who blew the game. Given that Speier couldn't do anything in the ninth, I can't see any shuffling of relievers changing the end result.

After 7 innings, Miguel Batista had pitched 7 innings and given up 1 run.

Curiously, after 7 innings the Twins pitchers had also pitched 7 innings. What are the chances?

Did anyone else find Candiotti and Faulds fantastic last night?

I thought they were enthusiastic without being homerish, and they sounded like two guys having fun at a baseball game. I appreciated a lot of Candiotti's analysis of strategy and batting mechanics, because I know nothing of either and he made his points in ways that felt almost like illumination to me.

And kudos to Faulds -- I don't know if it's Cerrutti who brings him down or if he's been inspired by the recent play of the team, but he was having so much fun and it made me have fun with him.

Right up until we lost, of course.

His call on that Lew Ford near-homer was great: "And it's...it's...FOUL!"

Adams in the 8th, Speier in the 9th...if Adams can't go Frasor takes his spot - De Los Santos and Ligtenberg on hand as LOOGYs and ROOGYs respectively if needed - Kershner is long man who would open up the 10th if needed and go as much as 4 innings - Nakamura fills any other role.


As I pointed out in yesterday's thread, after Koskie got on, the Twins next 4 batters were R-L-R-R. As a ROOGY, Ligtenberg was a defensible choice. What is ironic here is that it was Ford, a RHB, who did the damage. If Ligtenberg got him, the the Jays would have won the game.

It was pointed out that Adams was not ready to go last night, which kind of forced Tosca's hand. With Koskie leading off the inning, I think I would have gone to De Los Santos, and stuck with him for 3 batters. Then, if the inning still wasn't over, I'd switch over to go to Ligtenberg. In my parallel universe, Speier still would have gotten the call in the 9th.

What do you do?

I have no problem with what Tosca did with the pitchers yesterday. The issue Monday was that Lilly had thrown a lot of pitches. Tired pitchers who keep pitching have a greater chance of getting hurt. Hurt pitchers do not help the team.

Batista got yanked yesterday after 104 pitches. No problem there. How could Tosca have known who would or would not have been effective out of the pen?

I agree with the consensus opinion. As discussed elsewhere, that it did not work out does not indicate that it was a bad decision.

I might have pulled Batista in the 7th, but it was a close and defensible call.

I might have throw a leftie in against Koskie, but that was also a close and defensible call.

Speier was absolutely the right call, he just had a bad day or whatever.

I've been hard on Tosca's bullpen usage in the past, but it's important to be fair, and here he did no harm.

Yep. Just trying to mislead EZ a little by not telling him how close he was. ;)

You sonofa...

Acually, I should have got that. I really like that album. I thought I was the only one. Alma Matters in my life.

PS. Does anybody else think that Warren Sawkiw has a giant mouth?

Warren Sawkiw has a giant mouth

Yes, and if you look carefully while it's open, you can see the light shining through from the back of his head.

Yes, and if you look carefully while it's open, you can see the light shining through from the back of his head.

Actually, my initial comment was "Does anybody think he needs a beating?" but I toned it down for fear of reprisal.

Glad to see I'm not the only one.

We like Warren Sawkiw because his gigantic smile fades and fades and fades while his co-host is talking, and then snaps back to full force once it's his turn to speak again.

It's great. Try watching him instead of Campbell or Broadhead or whoever they've paired him with next time.

LOL at NFH's analysis of the Sawkiw Cyclical Smile.

Sawkiw scares me a little with his manic smiling.

If Adams wasn't available because he he warmed up twice the night before, I guess the bigger question is why he warmed up twice the night before in a 6-1 game?

Anyway, I would have been thanking my lucky stars that I got through 7 innings with Batista and wouldn't have even thought about putting him out there in the 8th. The thought would have been so ridiculous to me as to not enter my mind. He had clearly given up on the game facing the last batter in the 7th, he couldn't throw strikes when he had to, and despite pitching a very mediocore game bordering on terrible had a few things broke differently, he had delivered a 4-1 lead through 7 innings. So obviously I disagree vehemently with leaving Batista in to face a patient hitter in the 8th.

So given that Adams wasn't available (and I don't agree at all with the circumstances that brought THAT about either), I probably would have gone to any of Speier, Kershner, or De Los Santos to start the 8th inning. I would have liked to have gone to Adams and even used him for a two inning save the way he's been throwing lately but apparently that wasn't an option thanks to him being needlessly burned the night before.

Do I have any idea if that would have worked out? Not really. The Twins were out for blood in the 8th and 9th and the guys the Jays called upon made mistake after mistake in the strike zone.

R Billie, I think you and I are exactly on the same page with respect to yesterday's game, which is leaving a bitterness like no other game this year (here we are in a day 2 thread on the topic!).

While almost all of the discussion is focusing on Tosca's pitcher usage, the ominous signs were early in the game when Wells hit into an inning-ending DP with the bases loaded and Gomez did the same with men on first and third. Santana wasn't in vintage form but the Jays hitters let him off the hook.

A curious decision, to which I don't think anyone has made mention, is that Gomez was left in to face the RH Rincon in the 9th. Why was Hinske not brought in? Surely Gomez's glove at 3B can't be so much better than Hinske's as to warrant sticking with him for defensive reasons alone. All other things being equal, the Twin 9th might have started off differently with Hinske in at third. Gomez dove for a ball that a much taller Hinske might have reached. Of course he might have thrown it into the dugout as well.

I was thinking the same thing, Chuck. Or why not have Howie Clark hit, if you want to give Hinske the day off. You could even have moved Berg to 3rd and Clark to the outfield, if you thought it would improve your D.

From my viewpoint:

a) the game was primarily lost through an inability to tag on more runs throughout the first few innings;

b) as I mentioned in the gamethread last night, Batista had struggled all night and even though he'd only thrown around 100 pitches through 7 innings they'd been a tough 100 pitches with men on in most innings;

c) the worst call was to bring Batista out for 8th, he was done - Tosca admitted as much by pulling him after walking the leadoff man - as I said last night, if you really thought he was still ok to bring back for the 8th you wouldn't have pulled him after one batter;

d) there was nothing wrong with choosing Lightenburg to be the next man in at that point;

e) I thought the 8th called for the Captain Hook routine of Lightenburg then lefty (either one) then Frasor to deal with the L/R matchups;

f) Speier was the right choice for the 9th. No blame should attach to Tosca for Speier's flamethrower routine - it happens.

I think its time to put Wells into a different spot in the line-up for a few games. The 8,9,1,2 spots in the lineup have been particularly productive for the last week or so. Wells has killed a huge number of rallies. Just to shake things up for him I might bat him 5th or 6th for a game or two.

I agree with Mike Green about the Berg situation. Almsot as bad as watching SuperBlow start in LF for the Mets. Tosca needs to learn to manage with 11 pitchers, and the Jays need a better RHB off the bench (Russ Branyan). The offense hasn't arrived back at the point where it can carry so many weak spots- it was there before Stewart was dealt, but there's a void now (it should've been filled by Bobby Kielty, who some people here were claiming would be at least equal to Stew, but we see how that worked out...).

dp, Branyan is a LHB.

Good thing I'm not the GM...

it should've been filled by Bobby Kielty, who some people here were claiming would be at least equal to Stew, but we see how that worked out...

How it worked out doesn't seem to me particularly relevant in dealing with these "claims". Kielty is equal to Stewart, whether or not he produced in his short time in Toronto (which, of course, he didn't. Blech.)

Their career numbers are basically the same. Plus Kielty didn't have Stewart's godawful decisionmaking in left. All in all, I think assigning the blame on the struggling offense to an absence of Shannon Stewart is overstating that effect by about 10,000%.

It's only 9456%. No need to exaggerate.

Having Stewart and left and using Branyan are fine if you're completely willing to punt defence. Or you have a team that is solidly elsewhere in D (which the Jays aren't). Or you're going to DH Stew and use Branyan only as a PH. None of those really apply to the Jays.

As I said in the off-season, I'd rather have Kielty than Lilly, but Kielty isn't exactly lighting it up this year either.

I agree that Shannon Stewart's absence has only a little to do with the Jays' season to date. But, I take a different view of his defensive abilities. IMO, he has tremendous range, a poor arm, and makes a significant number of mistakes. All in all, he's an average defensive leftfielder, and that's fine.

It is a good thing to have a leadoff hitter who can reach base 37-38% of the time. Shannon will do that for you, and it is not likely that Reed Johnson will be able to do that for a sustained period. Reed Johnson will also not earn $6 million this year.

He has tremendous speed, but he has poor range. He takes more L routes to balls than a wide receiver.

Baseball Prospectus is having a pizza feed in Toronto on May 11.

It is a good thing to have a leadoff hitter who can reach base 37-38% of the time. Shannon will do that for you, and it is not likely that Reed Johnson will be able to do that for a sustained period. Reed Johnson will also not earn $6 million this year


I think we were all a bit too optimistic about Johnson being able to replace Stewart completely this year. JP & Tosca have already realized that Reed Johnson has serious limitations against RHP, and have take away a lot his playing time and given it to Howie Clark (which seems to have worked out pretty well so far).

What Johnson does do is mash lefties at a respectable rate, and play OF well enough to backup at any position. Used properly, he should get 300 AB. Going into this year, a lot of people (inlcuding me) incorrectly assumed he was good for 600 AB.

Reed is a career .366 on-base guy against lefties (albeit in 122AB). I see no reason he and Clark can't platoon and get the .370 OBP you'd expect from Stewart. Johnson + Clark can match Stew, at a much lower cost, while strengthening the bench. I'd like to have a better defensive outfielder than Howie Clark, but I think that's coming soon enough. :)

Tosca's brain cramp with Batista is a given. But, I agree that Speier's performance was, for the most part, unforseeable.

Entertaining game to watch, though. Given their penchant this year for early-inning flameouts, I'll take a bullpen disaster every now and then. And to the Twins no less. 7,8, & 9 have typically been their innings the last couple of years. It's not as if anyone actually believes that the Jay's bullpen is built to last, anyway.

http://theraindrops.weblogs.us/archives/015441.html
COMN for the summary of defensive metrics for leftfielders, cited in the "Consensus is King" thread here. Shannon comes out a little worse than average, and better than Reed Johnson. That accords more or less with my subjective opinion. You are not punting defense when you have Shannon out there; you're just taking the good with the annoyingly bad.

I meant Dave Berg, not Howie Clark. And expecting a .350 or so OBP from Dave Berg is probably hugely optimistic on my part.

dp is right. The Jays do need a RHB OF.

No, I did mean Clark.

TO HELL WITH IT.. I'M GETTING SOME COFFEE!

Anyone read the preview on mlb.com for tonight's game? The quote on the end is rather interesting:

"I try to only worry about what I can do, which is throw quality pitches. The rest is up to my teammates and coaching staff. I get paid to make quality pitches not to win games." -- Miguel Batista

I don't really know what to think about it. At first it sounds a tad selfish and accusatory, but I guess it's better than saying, "yeah, my teammates suck." And I think they ARE paid to win games. Making quality pitches usually goes into winning games (but not always-see Cory Lidle in April/May 2003), but winning games is certainly more important. Any other thoughts?

Did anyone else find Candiotti and Faulds fantastic last night?

I still can't get over the fact that Faulds has been doing this for a looooong time. He's been around for years but still stinks, despite the fact that he might be getting slightly better at it. Saying that Candiotti and Faulds were fantastic last night is pure hyperbole.
It burns me that we're stuck listening to Faulds blabber on like a nitwit night after night, and the Expos play-by-play team on the Score (Sam Cosentino and Darrin Fletcher) sound professional and insightful, despite only having worked together for a few games. Faulds make my blood boil - not the best way to drum up a solid TV audience. The Expos team make the game fun to watch.

I should start a petition asking Sportsnet to boot Faulds and hire Cosentino. Who would sign it?

Reed is a career .366 on-base guy against lefties (albeit in 122AB). I see no reason he and Clark can't platoon and get the .370 OBP you'd expect from Stewart. Johnson + Clark can match Stew, at a much lower cost, while strengthening the bench. I'd like to have a better defensive outfielder than Howie Clark, but I think that's coming soon enough. :)


Johnson/Clark looks like a fine leadoff hitter. I'm sure Clark would be happy with the unexpected playing time as well.

The other problem staring the Jays in the face is that Catalanotto needs a RHB platoon partner (at least against tough lefties) and Dave Berg is not a good enough hitter (or fielder) to fill that role.

Are there any decent "free" RHB outfield options around? Maybe Hermansen deserves a second chance?

Did Hermansen have even much of a first chance?

I don't really know what to think about it. At first it sounds a tad selfish and accusatory, but I guess it's better than saying, "yeah, my teammates suck." And I think they ARE paid to win games. Making quality pitches usually goes into winning games (but not always-see Cory Lidle in April/May 2003), but winning games is certainly more important. Any other thoughts?


I like it. Batista is a pretty smart guy. Smart enough to realize that it's not his win. He has to pitch well, but his teammates have to get some hits and play good defense in order for him to get a "W" beside his name.

Lots of other starting pitchers throw hissy fits when the bullpen blows a lead. I'm glad Batista isn't one of them.

What this team needs is another everday outfielder altogether and then platoon F-Cat and Johnson. I'm cautiosly optomistic that a F-Cat/Johnson platoon could be one of the better outfielders in the AL. Hopefully Rios is that other outfielder but if not then they need to find someone else. Even though people have mentioned a number of times that the Jays have depth at outfield in the system, I don't actually agree, they have Rios and Gross and that's about it. If one of those two don't blossom you need to look outside the system.

Mike Green's probably mostly right about Stew's defence (painful as it is to admit he wasn't completely awful), thoguh I think sample size has hurt Reed Johnson in those numbers.

Hijack - people who ask you to confirm a bunch of things you never said, suck. They suck-diddly-uck. As does work.

Sigh. I'm glad I have you guys to keep me sane.

"I try to only worry about what I can do, which is throw quality pitches. The rest is up to my teammates and coaching staff. I get paid to make quality pitches not to win games." -- Miguel Batista

That strikes me as an intelligent, sensible comment. He's saying that there's only so much of the game he can control, and he tries to focus on that. Works for me.

Last night's game was ugly, but these things happen. Speier gave up a bunch of ground-ball singles before giving up the long bomb; on another night, those ground balls go right to a fielder, and the game's over. If he keeps blowing leads, you might have to make a move, but for now, I'd say just tip your hat to the other guys and go get 'em next game.

An amendment to my previous post:
A play-by-play team of Cosentino and Wilner would rival the glory days of Buck and Dan.
I'm serious about this petition thing.
I might start up a website.

Craig-
I never calimed that losing Stew was the reason the offense has slumped, just that having him makes the slumps worse- he was consistently on base aand getting hits, didn't slump very often. Delgado is a streaky hitter, with Wells it is too early to tell, and the rest of the lineup, other than Cat, is pretty untested. I agree he wouldn't be worth his contract to Toronto, but that doesn't mean that he isn't missed.

Re: the Kielty comparison- I still don't understand this. Kielty played his first full season last year and was significantly worse than Stewart. Kielty put up nice numbers in a part-time role in 2002, but otherwise hasn't produced. Stewart's OB% range has been .363-.377 since he became a regular. He's hit over .300 every year since 1999. Salary aside (Chris Woodward is more valuable than Derek Jeter), Stewart is the better player. The argument was ridiculous at the time, and after Kielty's miserable 2003 and Stewart's romp, I figured it would be put to bed.

Craig, you're the guy who keeps us up to date on Bonds- if he hits .450 instead of .350 this year, with the same OB%, wouldn't you say the .450 has more value. You're just throwing out the fact that Kilety doesn't hit for as high an average as Stewart as insignificant because their OB% are similar, and I think that's a mistake.

I'm with the crowd that went into this season hoping that a LF platoon of Catalanotto/Johnson was eventually forthcoming, with dazzling young superstar Rios becoming the fulltime RF starting in the summer.

While Clark and Berg are halfway usable major leaguers, they should not be effectively platooning as corner outfielders. That's not a good situation.

Failing Rios' imminent arrival, it would nice to at least go after a Lew Ford type as a RH OF, though it would help if he stopped hitting .400, so that he could became tradable. The return of LeCroy and Mauer and increased role of Cuddyer could make Ford expendable, but not if he's the team's best hitter!

Where's Gary Roenicke when you need him? (Although with the growing number of sabermetrically inclined GM's, Roenicke would not be the freely available talent he was back in his day.)

Hijack - people who ask you to confirm a bunch of things you never said, suck. They suck-diddly-uck.

No kidding. There's one idiot on the Jays official site who on several occasions attacked me for things I never said (or even came close to saying, for that matter). I don't know how I managed to put up with the mind-numbing stupidity regularly displayed on that site for as long as I did.

I'm not giving up hope on Gross- even though he's slumped early I think he'll arrive before Rios, but that's just a hunch.

Even though people have mentioned a number of times that the Jays have depth at outfield in the system, I don't actually agree, they have Rios and Gross and that's about it. If one of those two don't blossom you need to look outside the system.

I don't disagree but OF, and especially LF, is probably the easiest position to fill cheaply. That should be the least of the Jays concerns.

if he hits .450 instead of .350 this year, with the same OB%, wouldn't you say the .450 has more value

Not unless his slugging goes up those 100 points.

Batting average tells you almost exactly nothing if you have OBP and SLG.

Stew and BK have essentially identical OBP and SLG over their careers. Now I was being a bit disingenuous before - Stew has done it for longer, so our confidence in his ability to replicate it is in fact greater.

after Kielty's miserable 2003 and Stewart's romp, I figured it would be put to bed

The upshot of it is this... you don't take two players who have identical career numbers, and make conclusions about who's a better player based on their last 70 games. That would be foolish.

Batting average tells you almost exactly nothing if you have OBP and SLG.

AVG doesn't necessarily tell you a lot about value alongside OBP and SLG, but it does shed some light on what type of hitter you're looking at. Does his OBP come from talking walks or from putting a lot of balls in play? Does his SLG come from hitting singles in bulk or from a good extra base hit percentage?

Well, I don't know what the relative hullaboo is about Kielty. Forgive the scouting report here, but he really looks lost as a left-handed hitter: He fidgets constantly, jerking his hands way too often, and then when he swings he's almost bailing out of the box. I believe the scouthead way of saying this is "He's not quiet at the plate." If he could hit RH full-time, it may be worth his while to do so.

I'd be willing to give him a healthy 500 at-bats as a right-handed hitter before I pass judgment. But he's already 28, and at some point you've got to admit that the player you see is the player you're going to see, for better or worse.

Oddly, this is exactly what happened when people finally realized Stewart wasn't going to be a 25/30 guy. But he's a very good ball-player, in the Ray Durham mold: one who in many ways is still reminded of the player he isn't, not the player he is (Jayson Stark's osbession of Stewart excepted of course). Kielty has a great eye at the dish, and he sees a lot of pitches. That's where his value lies right now, and if the last two years are any indication, that's the best we're going to get. As I say ... I'm willing to give him 500 at-bats this year. I'm not holding my breath.

Batting average tells you almost exactly nothing if you have OBP and SLG.

Can you explain why this is? There's weird logic here- counting stats don't matter in evaluating ability, but the benefits of a single vs a walk can only be measured by counting stats. With 1B empty and a runner on 2nd or 3rd, a single is better than a walk. As I said above, the reason to value OB% in evaluating players is that BA tend to fluctuate a lot, but Stewart's doesn't; getting hits is an actual skill that he's demonstrated throughout his career. Don't mistake me as being an anti-stat person, but I think that one of the consequences of overstating the case for OB% over BA is that people make the mistake of discounting BA altogether.

The upshot of it is this... you don't take two players who have identical career numbers, and make conclusions about who's a better player based on their last 70 games. That would be foolish.

This is frustarting. How do we evaluate Kielty? I'm not using 70 games, I'm using the whole season, during which Stewart hit .307/.364/.459 and Kielty hit .244/.358/.400. He had one valuable half-season, and one pretty mediocre full season. Stewart was up earlier, facing major league pitching younger. You're using his career averages, which might not be the best indicator of his actual ability. Stewart had 2 full seasons where he slugged .411 and .417 at the age Kielty was flipping back and forth between AAA and the majors. Kielty's only full season (at age 26) is barely as good as Stewart's worst.

But he's already 28, and at some point you've got to admit that the player you see is the player you're going to see, for better or worse.

i think he's 27. I hope so- we have the same birthdate and I'm not ready to be 29 in August.

Jonny, you're right. What I meant is that the average tells you nothing about a player's value.

One thing I forgot - in small samples (Stew's career is not a small sample), players with high AVG but the same SLG and OBP as players with normal AVG are probably not as good. AVG has a lower year-to-year correlation than isolated power or "isolated discipline", which is the fluctuation that dp mentioned and is a good thing to generally keep in mind.

As for Kielty and Stewart, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. dp makes some good points. I should add that Stewart is now 30; an age where non-stars tend to drop off very rapidly. I expect him to no longer be good enough to start after his current contract expires. Kielty is younger, which does make some difference.

My point about BA and OBP/SLG isn't that BA is variable, but rather that when you have OBP/SLG you can predict runs to a pretty good degree of accuracy. Having BA doesn't make you any more accurate.

I have nothing to add to what I said earlier ... I should add that Stewart is now 30 ...

That is funny. My mom does the same thing to me all the time, Craig: "I have nothing more to say to you. (Pause) But you really should not (insert perceived injustice of your choice here)."

Recall that I love my mother very much, Craig. Consider it a compliment to you.

No, I just meant I have nothing more substantive to contribute.

I didn't mean anything by it, Craig.

To elaborate, I don't think that my point about SS being 30 and BK 27 has anything to do with backing up my original point, which was that Kielty is as good as Stewart. Their ages have nothing to do with that. I think I'm probably wrong to some degree on my original point, as dp has shown.

I should add that Stewart is now 30; an age where non-stars tend to drop off very rapidly. I expect him to no longer be good enough to start after his current contract expires.

I'm curious to see how Stewart ages. Bobby Kelly came up as a comp, but he was never as consistent. He did go on to post nice numbers as a 2/3 timer until 35, after a worthless age 30 season ended his days as a regular. Wally Moon's career path was pretty much what Craig's predicting for Stewart- pretty much a total dropoff after being useful. I could still see Stewart sharpening his eye a bit and hitting for more power, but I think it would require a change in approach - the kind brought on by a long slump, or the lineup position change that Stewart balked at in Toronto.

My point about BA and OBP/SLG isn't that BA is variable, but rather that when you have OBP/SLG you can predict runs to a pretty good degree of accuracy. Having BA doesn't make you any more accurate.

Point taken. Again, though, I think players like Stewart are rare- while his OB% is derived mostly of BA, he still does draw some BB, and isn't totally undisciplined or flukely the way a lot of high-BA, low BB hitters are. Leading off, I think he gets stuff to hit so does (and I've said before, I'm biased because I enjoy watching way he hits- saw him get 3 identical singles one game, same swing same pperctly placed ball through the SS-3B hole). All things being equal, which scores more runs- a lineup of .250/.350/.450 guys or one with .300/.350/.450 guys? I know I've read stuff about this but can't remember where or what they said.

While Clark and Berg are halfway usable major leaguers, they should not be effectively platooning as corner outfielders. That's not a good situation.

I think you're underrating Clark. In a platoon, he'll give you an above average OBP at the top of the lineup. Pretty decent for a league minimum stopgap, if you ask me.

Failing Rios' imminent arrival, it would nice to at least go after a Lew Ford type as a RH OF, though it would help if he stopped hitting .400, so that he could became tradable. The return of LeCroy and Mauer and increased role of Cuddyer could make Ford expendable, but not if he's the team's best hitter!

Knowing the Twins, they'll end up deciding that Cuddyer is Todd Walker, part II. When Lecroy and Mauer come back, JP should be dangling some low level pitching prospects and seeing if he can get Cuddyer back in return.

Lew Ford's hot start is a blessing in disguise.

if he hits .450 instead of .350 this year, with the same OB%, wouldn't you say the .450 has more value

I got to go with dp here, (on this discrete point) all things being equal, a hit(single) is more useful than a walk. As I understand it singles do not elevate slugging % and therefore slugging is irrelevant. A single can score a player from second or third or even first. It also puts pressure on a defence, so some singles may in effect be a double (if an error is made). So if the higher average was all singles, this would still be better than walks. Of course a higher batting average is likely to include 2B, 3B, HR all of which are much better than walks. The only advantage of a walk I can see is that it requires 4 pitches and may raise pitch counts. This is a minor factor.

DP's question:

Take two players
A: .250/.350/.450
B: .300/.350/.450

In 400 PA's, a typical line for each would be:

A: 120 hits, 89 1Bs, 21 2Bs, 10HR, 20 walks, 380AB, 260 outs
B: 100 hits, 66 1Bs, 20 2Bs, 14HR, 40 walks, 360AB, 260 outs

Anyone want to plug those into the typical RC/27 formulas and see what you get?

If I've got the formulas right, the RC/27s are:

A: 6.40
B: 6.27

Over 162 games, the A team would score 1037 runs, and the B team would score 1015 runs. So it's close, but A has an advantage. That is, if my calculations are right, and I'm not convinced they are. :)

As I understand it singles do not elevate slugging % and therefore slugging is irrelevant.

Unless you're slugging 1.000, they elevate slugging percentage. Unless you're Barry Bonds, hitting a bunch of singles (as opposed to making outs) will elevate it a lot.

As I understand it singles do not elevate slugging % and therefore slugging is irrelevant.

Ducey, this is not correct. A single increases your total bases and therefore increases SLG.

Mike's question:

Mike, I used the basic version of xRuns. I get 55.1 runs created for player A, and 55.3 for player B. (5.72 per 27 outs versus 5.74)

The two players are identical.

Mike, I think you have the raw totals for A and B reversed.

Crap.. Attempt 3. :)

Oops.. you're right. A is the .300 hitter, not B. Thanks! Try that again:

Take two players
A: .300/.350/.450
B: .250/.350/.450

In 400 PA's, a typical line for each would be:

A: 120 hits, 89 1Bs, 21 2Bs, 10HR, 20 walks, 380AB, 260 outs
B: 100 hits, 66 1Bs, 20 2Bs, 14HR, 40 walks, 360AB, 260 outs

If I've got the formulas right, the RC/27s are:

A: 6.40
B: 6.27

Of course, other formulas will lead to slightly different results. And there's a lot of them out there.

I should start a petition asking Sportsnet to boot Faulds and hire Cosentino. Who would sign it?

I'm not sure if anyone else has responded yet, but I'd definitely support the petition (as long as it's worded sensitively). GO FOR IT, GFR!

Mike,

I'm not sure about those figures. Isn't (pardon my ignorance) batting average hits/ABs? Not hits/PA? If so, your A & B end up with too high an average.

Oops.. You're right.. the average *is* too high.

I give up. I'm having the worst day with Excel today (it's all I've been using at work too). I think I should just write-off the rest of the day and go drinking. Who's with me?

I've been using a fair bit of Excel today too. It irritates me that its graphing capabilities are so rubbish.

I was lucky, though - I had planned to stay at work late (would probably still be there now, and it's 10pm local time) but the latest Beagle worm (or whatever it's called) managed to leak into the computing lab network and they demanded that all Windows PCs be shut down at about 5pm while they figured out how to disinfect. So I had to come home, and watch last night's game v the Twins. Shame about the result.

OK, let's do figures that I know actually are right, and we'll go from there.

Player A : .300/.350/.450
Player B : .250/.350/.450

        PA   AB   H   2B  3B  HR  BB   BA  OBP  SLG
Mr. A  500  464  139  28   0  14  36 .300 .350 .450
Mr. B  500  433  108  27   0  20  67 .249 .350 .450

Using basic xRuns, I get 68.85 xRuns for Player A and 69.00 for Player B. 5.72 xR/27 for A, 5.73 xR/27 for B.

I should start a petition asking Sportsnet to boot Faulds and hire Cosentino. Who would sign it?

I don't know who Cosentino is, but I'm in. Actually, I'd also be in for Cousin Tino, Costanza, Canasta, Costa Rica or a goldfish (live or cracker form).

Thanks for bailing me out once again, Craig.

I'd like to blame Excel, but it's my fault. Stayed up too late watching hockey, got up too early to get enough sleep to function.

Wow, thanks. That's a big help.

Let me be very clear about something. This does NOT mean that a walk is as valuable as a single. A walk is not as valuable as a single. What it means, is that whether a player's OBP and SLG come from hitting singles, or from hitting other things, just doesn't matter all that much.

Let's do two more players, out at the extremes...

        PA   AB   H   2B  3B  HR  BB   BA  OBP  SLG  xRuns  xR/27
Mr. A  500  464  139  28   0  14  36 .300 .350 .450   68.9   5.72
Mr. B  500  433  108  27   0  20  67 .249 .350 .450   69.0   5.73

Mr. C  500  500  175  20   0  10   0 .350 .350 .450   69.5   5.77
Mr. D  500  385   60  11   0  34 115 .156 .350 .450   70.5   5.86

OK, Mr. D is a real outlier, and not at all realistic. But he still fits. These guys are all the same player in terms of plating runs.

I think we should name these players. Suggestions?

Mr. D looks like Rob Deer Circa 1991:

539 PA, 80 H, 14 2B, 25 HR, 89 BB .179/.314/.386

Is Mr. D a rapper?

http://bluejayscheerclub.com
The Dennis Lee fan in me wants you to call one of them Billy Batter. Preferably the worst one. ;)

Mr. C could be Shawon Dunston's 1999 season.

245 PA, 243 AB, 78 H, 11 2B, 3 3B, 5 HR, 2 BB, .321/.337/.453

Craig,

Very interesting. This provides some evidence for stat-heads concentration on OBP and SLG.

Another question. What about a two or three players with OBP of .300 and SLG of .500, or OBP of .380 and SLG of .420? If there's no difference it's more evidence in favour of OPS as a stat. But I suspect there will be a difference.

Do you mean comparing a 300/500 guy to a 380/420 guy?

If so, there's no comparison. The latter will create a lot more runs, because he'll make a lot less outs.

We should be using 1.7-2.0*OPS + SLG. OBP is the more valuable component. But it doesn't make a large difference for most players.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/minors/hotsheet2004.html
I am so confused. But let me try this, the 4 guys you show all *score* about the same number of runs as each other?

But a walk is not as useful because it is not as likely to drive in another runner?

Thanks for your patience :-)

In other news Banks is #11 on the BA Prospect Hot Sheet this week (COMN)

No, it means that a lineup of 9 of those guys would all score about the same number of runs. It doesn't tell you how many times a specific individual would cross the plate.

That should read

(1.7 to 2.0)*OBP + SLG

"Mr. C" looks like AJ Pierzynski

Hey, guys...nice to see a smart group of baseballheads!

I'm starting a baseball simulation league (late because I finally just got a capable computer.)

It's going to be a draft league - we'll likely have about 20 teams - and we'll play using the Diamond Mind simulator (you don't have to buy it - just send me your lineups and starting rotation for each 4-game (weekly) series.

Interested?

Drop me a line at onemanarmy@rogers.com - and gojaysgo! (I used to work @ 'Dome...miss it...)

Mark

Hey, guys...nice to see a smart group of baseballheads!

I'm starting a baseball simulation league (late because I finally just got a capable computer.)

It's going to be a draft league - we'll likely have about 20 teams - and we'll play using the Diamond Mind simulator (you don't have to buy it - just send me your lineups and starting rotation for each 4-game (weekly) series.

Interested?

Drop me a line at onemanarmy@rogers.com - and gojaysgo! (I used to work @ 'Dome...miss it...)

Mark

Hey, guys...nice to see a smart group of baseballheads!

I'm starting a baseball simulation league (late because I finally just got a capable computer.)

It's going to be a draft league - we'll likely have about 20 teams - and we'll play using the Diamond Mind simulator (you don't have to buy it - just send me your lineups and starting rotation for each 4-game (weekly) series.

Interested?

Drop me a line at onemanarmy@rogers.com - and gojaysgo! (I used to work @ 'Dome...miss it...)

Mark

Oops...me learn how to use computer for first time...duh...

Sorry for the triplepost earlier.

BTW, I'm officially in the "I hate Sawkiw" club - vapid airhead, while describing Milton Bradley's meltdown in LA tonight actually GRINNED whilst telling us that MB's mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Sheesh.

Can't we get someone more qualified than someone whose bio lists "NOT becoming a replacement player" as one of his career highlights?

OK, sorry to bring up such an old thread, but I really have to make a comment here on Craig's analysis of Shannon Stewart vs. Bobby Kielty and the importance of batting average. Perhaps the most important things being overlooked here is that the "Moneyball" strategy (which has never impressed me in the least, BTW) of patience at the plate and the three-run HR is pretty much useless in terms of the postseason. The philosphy that a BB is just as valuable as single, meaning that BA gives you no new (valuable) info if you already know OBP and SLG, completely falls apart against good teams with good pitching, because good pitchers make you earn your way on base rather than giving out free passes. The fact is that a proven contact hitter with, say, a .315 BA and a .375 OBP is vastly more valuable against good competition (i.e. when it matters most) than an otherwise comparable player with a .275 BA and a .375 OBP. This is in addition to the fact that a solid single (as opposed to a leg-it-out, Ichiro-esque infield single) is much preferred over a BB with RISP.