Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Archives Jays Roundup - Hello.
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?

Yankees 5 - Jays 3

Boxscore

  1. Recaps:

    • Spencer Fordin:

        Forget about the numbers.

        The very fact that Roy Halladay was able to take the mound on Tuesday night was a victory in itself for the Blue Jays, even if that win doesn't count in the standings. The Yankees ruined the ace's return with a few early runs and cruised to a 5-3 win in the middle act of a three-game set.

    • Mark Feinsand:

        Jason Giambi has less than two weeks to state his case for a spot on the Yankees' playoff roster. Tuesday night was a good first step, as he belted a two-run home run to lead New York to a 5-3 win over the Toronto Blue Jays at Yankee Stadium.

        Giambi's home run lifted the Yankees to their 58th comeback win of the season, tying them with the 1977 Phillies for the most in a single season in the modern era.

    • Larry Millson:

        It was a matter of good location and bad location for Roy Halladay.

        The good location was that he was back in his office, the pitcher's mound, in his first start since July 16.

        The bad location came in the first inning or two. Last year's Cy Young Award winner's pitches were up, especially his curveball, possibly a product of being overeager after missing so much time because of a cranky right shoulder.

    • Larry Millson (again):

        Roy Halladay gave up one home run in each of his first two innings and then retired eight of his final nine batters in his first start in more than two months last night.

        The New York Yankees defeated the Toronto Blue Jays 5-3 before 36,675 fans at Yankee Stadium but even if Halladay did not return in triumph, the outing seemed to provide reassurance that his right shoulder is sound.

    • Mike Rutsey:

        "My location on the curveball the first inning or so wasn't very good, it was a case of overthrowing it," Halladay said. "But I felt good, the ball was moving so I felt happy with that. It's just a matter of getting the location down."

        Halladay wasn't talking about results -- he'd take the wins if they came -- but the all-important factor for him is to make his starts and to be pain free. The other stuff is gravy.

    • Ben Walker:

        Jason Giambi took a curtain call and Esteban Loaiza got the souvenir ball. For a pair of guys struggling since playing in the all-star game, it was a nice time to break out.

        Giambi homered to end the longest slump of his career and Loaiza finally earned his 100th career victory and first for the Yankees, leading New York over the Toronto Blue Jays 5-3 Tuesday night. "It doesn't get much better than that," Giambi said.

        Added Loaiza: "I feel a lot more part of it now."

        Gary Sheffield hit his 36th home run two days after getting a pair of cortisone shots. Alex Rodriguez almost homered for the Yankees, too, but centre-fielder Vernon Wells made a spectacular catch to stop him.

    • Geoff Baker:

        Jays reliever Brandon League made his big-league debut by retiring Sheffield on a chopper to end the fifth and tossed 1 1/3 scoreless innings. League was the franchise-record 25th pitcher to work for the Jays this season, mainly because of the innings lost to Halladay's injury.

        "I wouldn't mind getting the last two (possible starts) in,'' Halladay said. "Just to go out and get the (pitch) count up. We've come this far. Why not?''



  2. Fordin Notes on the pitching staff, particularly Miguel Batista:

      One week removed from the starting rotation, the right-hander is still looking for a steady routine. Batista got used to life as a starter, and he carved out his work habits to fit his assignment. When he switched to the bullpen, he did so thinking he'd be able to throw every day. Imagine his surprise to find out it doesn't really work that way.

      "My first day, I threw one inning," he said, setting up a story. "When I came in the next day, they told me I had a day off and I said, 'What? Day off? I just got my first day of work.'


  3. Rutsey Notes on Vernon Wells' catch, Miguel Batista's adjustment to the bullpen, Greg Zaun's foot, Frank Catalanotto's groin, assorted other body parts, and the rotation:

      Following the game interim manager John Gibbons announced that Justin Miller is out of the rotation and will end the season in the bullpen. The Jays rotation is now Roy Halladay, Ted Lilly, Gustavo Chacin, David Bush and Josh Towers.

      "That may be Miller's role," Gibbons said of the plans for Miller next season. "We'll see how he looks."

      Miller has struggled with his location since returning to the rotation after a lengthy stint on the disabled list.

      In 17 games, 15 starts, he's 3-4 with a 5.87 ERA.

    How do the Bauxites feel about the new rotation? I'm quite excited to see Chacin start again.

  4. Tonight's 7:05PM EST start in New York: LHP Ted Lilly (11-10, 3.91 ERA) vs. RHP Orlando Hernandez (8-0, 2.51 ERA). More details in the game preview.
Posted by Pepper Moffatt on Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 09:45 AM EDT.
Jays Roundup - Hello. | 121 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Jordan - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT (#21188) #
In post-game interviews, Halladay reported that his arm felt sort of comfortably numb after the fifth inning, when he hit the wall. I'm pretty sure Floyd Youmans had the same sort of problem once.
[ Reply to This ]
_MatO - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 10:03 AM EDT (#21189) #
Didn't Floyd Youmans have a problem with his pinky?
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 10:31 AM EDT (#21190) #
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20040921&content_id=865660&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp
Somebody asked about mlb.com's new "O-Zone" statistic in yesterday's game thread. I'm in the mood for work avoidance today, so here are some thoughts.

The O-Zone Factor (OZF) is: the proportion of this term's runners reaching second or third who do score, subtract the proportion of their opponents' runners reaching second or third who do score. The idea is supposed to be that it reflects "clutch hitting".

e.g. "The Cardinals, owners of the best record in baseball, have scored 43 percent of runners who have reached second or third, while only allowing 37 percent of opposing teams' runners in scoring position to reach home. Subtract .370 from .430 and the result is .060 -- that is St. Louis' O Zone Factor, and it is by far the top rating in baseball this season." [COMN for full article]

The article goes on to say that OZF is well correlated with winning percentage, but also notes that both the Yankees and Giants have low OZF but high numbers of wins. It also then compares OZF as a predictor of wins with equivalent hockeys stats; the claim seems to be that if OZF is better correlated with wins in baseball than powerplay success is in hockey then OZF must be a good baseball statistic.

First off I don't see any use in comparison across sports. There are very many baseball statistics, including some which are extremely well correlated of winning percentage. It would be better to compare with them. (I strongly suspect it would lose that comparison, although my work-avoidance right now does not go as far as calculating the figures.)

I'll concede that this OZF stat probably reflects winning ability better than the straightforward team batting average subtract opponents batting average. But I don't see that it brings anything new to the statistical recipe book. Three reasons:

1. The reason it correlates with winning percentage is surely simply because it correlates with runs scored - runs allowed. Most of your team's runs, and most of your opponents', will come from someone who got to 2nd or 3rd base. And we've long known how well run differentials correlate with winning percentage. (We've also long known that there are better functions of runs scored and runs allowed, like the Pythagorean statistic.)

[Incidentally, perhaps the reason the Yankees have a low OZF but a high winning percentage is that they lead the league in home runs which, of course, count more towards runs than they do towards OZF.]

2. It conflates run scoring and run prevention. There is no question that a team can be strong in one but not the other, and this statistic tells you nothing about that.

3. They present no evidence that it has any predictive value. This is partly because it is a team stat, and so it would be very hard to compare teams across the years (because personnel keeps changing). Without predictive value, what is the point?

The Pythagorean win-loss statistic, while not in itself predictive, is useful for two reasons: if you can predict run production for a hypothetical team (and with modern baseball methods, you can try) and estimate runs conceded, you can evaluate how well that team will perform in future. In this way you can try to build an optimal team. I don't know of any method to predict ability to score RISP (although I might be ignorant of one) and I particularly doubt that there is a method to predict ability to prevent RISP scoring, so there is no way to use OZF predictively. The second, and much more dubious in my opinion, use of the Pythagorean win-loss statistic is to claim that "luck", "good management", or some other intagible is responsible for a team's success or lack of it. I suppose you can similarly use OZF to say that certain teams lost because they didn't hit in clutch situations, but where's the help in that?

A summary -- OZF is a poor attempt by "old baseball" to meet "new baseball": the traditional idea that "clutch hitting wins matches", translated into basic statistical language. It brings little value to the table.

What is missing from my thoughts is some numerical evidence. I'd be happy to be proved right or wrong by the real world.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 10:45 AM EDT (#21191) #
Wayne H brought up "Hawaiian Punch-Out" as a snappy saying for Mr. League in last night's game thread. Well, it deserves a gigantic banner. I could do it simply tie-dyed or something like that, but I'd love to use an image of Punchy, the Hawaiian Punch kid. My google image searches have led me to nothing better than this:

I'd prefer something bigger and where he's got his fist closed, though I can work with this one if I have to.

Bauxites, I need your help.
[ Reply to This ]
robertdudek - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 10:54 AM EDT (#21192) #
Andrew K,

That was a superb post.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 10:57 AM EDT (#21193) #
Golf clap for Andrew K
[ Reply to This ]
_Grimlock - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 10:59 AM EDT (#21194) #
Me Grimlock finally saw a highlight this morning of Wells' catch last night. It was pure tits. Anyone remember Devo's catch in Camden Yards, just before the 1994 strike? Me Grimlock remembers that his entire torso went over the wall in CF, and he brought it back. Good times! THAT was absolute tits.
[ Reply to This ]
robertdudek - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:03 AM EDT (#21195) #
It would be interesting to see the year-to-year correlation of the stat.

A team with a higher batting average has a better chance to cash in runners from scoring position, one would think. That's because they are more likely to get a hit.

Similarly, a team that has a high strikeout rate will tend to strand more runners in scoring position.

What this means is that this O Zone thingy is not really measuring clutchness over and above normal stats.

Something like batting average with men in scoring position compared to batting average in non-scoring position situations would better capture clutch performance. Even then, there is scant evidence that players possess clutch ability (if they do it is very slight) so it's highly unlikely that there will be a strong year-to-year correlation for a stat like that on a team level.
[ Reply to This ]
_#2JBrumfield - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:05 AM EDT (#21196) #
How do the Bauxites feel about the new rotation? I'm quite excited to see Chacin start again.

If I understand this correctly, with Chacin getting a start in Baltimore, it looks like we won't get to see Chacin at the Dome during the final week-end of the year. Still, I look forward to tuning in for the Baltimore start.

I'm happy that it would appear that Bush would be on line to start the finale. I really enjoy watching him pitch and that was the main reason I went to see the game Saturday. I love it when he throws his 66-69 mph curveball and then throws 90-91. That's really got to throw off a hitter. He's become my favourite pitcher.
[ Reply to This ]
_Jim - TBG - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:15 AM EDT (#21197) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Aaron, check your email for Punchy.

And while we're on the topic of doctored graphics:

[ Reply to This ]
_#2JBrumfield - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:17 AM EDT (#21198) #
When I say Bush is on line to start the finale, I meant the finale of the Yankees series, not Baltimore.

Also, I see that on bluejays.com that they're selling $2.00 tickets for the entire Yankees series. I guess it's the Jays way of rewarding fans for the Season From Hell but it's puzzling they'd do this for the Yankees, who are their biggest draw. I'm afraid it'll make it hard for those of us with Season Passes to grab tickets. I'll just have to show up extra early I guess.
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:22 AM EDT (#21199) #
Something like batting average with men in scoring position compared to batting average in non-scoring position situations would better capture clutch performance. Even then, there is scant evidence that players possess clutch ability (if they do it is very slight) so it's highly unlikely that there will be a strong year-to-year correlation for a stat like that on a team level.

Clutch hitting was a topic of conversation between noted intellectuals Rod Black and Pat Tabler last evening. They were wondering why last year's team hit so well with men on base and this year's team doesn't. Black suggested that this was something that had to be addressed next year during spring training. He didn't say how. I presume it's because the information is so valuable that he doesn't intend to give it away for free.
[ Reply to This ]
robertdudek - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT (#21200) #
Rod Black at spring training 2005:

"Guys, last year you weren't very good at getting runners home from scoring position. This year ... um ... do a better job."
[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:28 AM EDT (#21201) #
Wasn't Pat Tabler 'Mr Bases Loaded'? He should know all about clutchness.
[ Reply to This ]
_Kevin Pataky - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:34 AM EDT (#21202) #
How would you like a nice Hawaiian Punch??


[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:35 AM EDT (#21203) #
I quite agree with what Robert says. I found an article (looks a bit old, but it shouldn't matter) which does some calculations about RISP. I haven't thought about it carefully enough to give an definitive opinion, but I find the statistical theory a little dubious.

Nonetheless it is worth reading. One conclusion is that RISP is not very relevant to a team's success.

Does anyone know where I can find team RISP for the last few years? I couldn't see it on ESPN. I'd also like to know how many ABs occurred with RISP for each team. I want to do a quick and dirty calculation of whether teams actually do hit any differently with RISP or whether there's no evidence of any difference.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:39 AM EDT (#21204) #
Black suggested that this was something that had to be addressed next year during spring training. He didn't say how.

By making sure they always have have men standing on second and third bases when the hitters are in the cage?
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:40 AM EDT (#21205) #
Sorry, ignore the request in my last post. I was being stupid, and have found the RISP data on ESPN. I'll post again if I find anything interesting.
[ Reply to This ]
_Kevin Pataky - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#21206) #
How about getting some Punchy T-Shirts made up??


[ Reply to This ]
_Jim - TBG - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:45 AM EDT (#21207) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
While we're working on marketing our relievers, here's a little something I came up with to play on the PA as Justin Speier comes on to close out a game. (To the tune of the 60s Spiderman cartoon theme - quite obviously)

Speier-man, Speier-man
Does whatever a closer can
Holds a lead, any size
With a strikeout, or pop flies
Look out!
Here comes the Speier-man

Is he fast?
Listen son,
Clocks mid-90s on the gun.
Batters swing out ahead
Has his splitter on a thread
Hey, there
There goes the Speier-man.

In the heat of the ninth;
A lead thin as a dime
Like Tom Henke-lite
He arrives just in time.

Speier-man, Speier-man
Interim closer Speier-man
Wealth and fame
He'll get more
Shiny saves are his reward.

To him, life is a great big bang up
After the bullpen phone hangs up
You'll find the Speier-man.


Tell me this wouldn't get the crowd pumped.
[ Reply to This ]
robertdudek - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:47 AM EDT (#21208) #
I love it!
[ Reply to This ]
_Braby - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:48 AM EDT (#21209) #
I was wondering if somebody could post the propable pitchers for the rest of the season for the Jays. I'm going to the game on Oct 1st and I was just wondering who would be pitching.
[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 11:54 AM EDT (#21210) #
Frank Catalanotto, fresh off surgery to his groin area and fresh off signing a two-year, $5.4-million US extension, paid a visit to his teammates yesterday.

The Jays DH/left fielder, who has a home on Long Island, said he is getting around without any pain and only feels a twinge in the area of the surgery when he touches it.

Shouldn't people keep this kind of thing private?
[ Reply to This ]
_Kevin Pataky - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 12:10 PM EDT (#21211) #
I saw Cat in the Jays dugout last night - he brought out his glove, signed it and gave it to a 9 year old boy (who was wearing a Yankee T-Shirt). He also signed some balls and flipped them in the stands. After batting practice, when the Jays were clearing the field, newly appointed ball bucket boy Gustavo Chacin put down his bucket to come over and talk with me. While he was, Kevin Frederick and a bunch of other Jays started pulling balls out of the bucket and flipping them into the stands. They must have sent a good 10-20 in there.
[ Reply to This ]
_alsiem - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 12:16 PM EDT (#21212) #
Hey guys,

Thanks for the tip about the $2 tickets on the final home stand. I bought some, limit of 10000 Sky Deck seats for each game.

Great thing, no handling, convenience fees etc. $2 really means $2.
[ Reply to This ]
_alsiem - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#21213) #
P.S.

You know that your attention has been wandering when you're totally surprised the Crozier is black. In appearence, he reminds me of McGriff, right down to the little 'tash.

However, the contact is not at the crime dog's level yet :)
[ Reply to This ]
_Kevin Pataky - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 12:24 PM EDT (#21214) #
According to Spencer Fordin, Chacin is pitching Sunday's game - so its possible he could pitch again vs. the Yankees next weekend. 10/1 would be 5 days after that start...
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 12:30 PM EDT (#21215) #
I'd like to weigh in on this RISP debate. I guess the fact that the Jays were great at it last year and lousy this year gives some weight to the argument that players don't have innate ability in that regard.

But I can't shake the memory of Alomar and Molitor consistently coming through in the clutch. It seems reasonable to me that certain players have the ability and the motivation to focus that much harder when there are runners to be cashed.

The fact that players like Woodward have lower averages with RISP also suggests other players lack that ability.
[ Reply to This ]
_#2JBrumfield - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 12:38 PM EDT (#21216) #
Jim - TBG.

Well done on the Speier-man song. That was hilarious! In my humble opinion, Spiderman is the best superhero of all time.
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 12:41 PM EDT (#21217) #
On RISP. I've just been playing with some data and have some interesting conclusions. The problem is that it will take a long time to type in and I don't really want to do that unless people are really interested. If anyone else, please let me know and I'll think about typing it up.

Let me just summarise the conclusion:

There is no evidence that any team hits any better with RISP at all*. I know this is contrary to conventional belief but it's pretty clear, unless I've stuffed up the computations (always possible). I use "evidence" in the statistical sense which accounts for sample size. I also use the standard statistical assumptions such as the binomial model. Toronto, according to my ESPN-derived data, hit .261 with RISP and .263 without; not a significant difference.

(*but for Milwaukee (and no-one else), who hit .258 without RISP and .220 with, there appears to be significant evidence that their performance is worse with RISP. Poor Milwaukee!)

On the other hand there is something interesting in ESPN's "close and late" data. I couldn't find out what they classify as a "close and late" situation but it's meant to be their interpretation of clutch, I guess. There is significant evidence that some teams hit significantly worse in clutch situations (Baltimore, Detroit, Texas). None hit significantly better. However my statistical assumptions for individual teams are almost certainly wrong here, because of the following fact: taken as a whole with ALL teams put together, baseball players hit significantly worse in "close and late" situations. .255 in such situations, .269 without. Very significant, statistically.
[ Reply to This ]
_Jordan - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 12:54 PM EDT (#21218) #
Ahem. Table One is still waiting for its cuttlefish.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:01 PM EDT (#21219) #
It seems reasonable to me that certain players have the ability and the motivation to focus that much harder

Magpie's Law: just because it makes intuitive sense doesn't make it true.

Alomar and Molitor did come through lots of times in the clutch, and that's because they were quality hitters who came through lots of times, period.

But there's no evidence anywhere of someone who could consistently raise their level of play.

The best predictive guide to clutch performance is most likely going to be overall performance.

The games leading the leagues in BAVG with runners in scoring position... happen to be the same guys leading the league in batting average.
[ Reply to This ]
robertdudek - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:01 PM EDT (#21220) #
Andrew,

I suspect it is because in close and late situations, teams are generally facing the opponent's best relief pitchers.
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT (#21221) #
Of course! *slaps forehead*.

Thanks, Robert, that's obviously the right explanation. I can't imagine why I didn't think about it like that.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#21222) #
baseball players hit significantly worse in "close and late" situations.

This has always been true, and probably always will be, and the reason has always been the same. People with names like Gagne, Rivera, Smoltz. Lots of them, at every opportunity. No number five starters or mop-up men allowed anywhere near the mound.
[ Reply to This ]
_Brian W - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:06 PM EDT (#21223) #
The league-wide difference in close-and-late numbers could be called the "closer effect". Those are the situations where teams are usually facing the top pitchers in the opposition bullpen, so it is expected that in general the numbers will be lower.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:15 PM EDT (#21224) #
Another obvious caveat applies when looking at individual production with runners in scoring position.

Small sample size.

Scott Rolen, for example. He's hitting .375 with RISP, and we all know he's not a .375 hitter. This year, at least, he's a .320 hitter. Is he a clutch hitter?

Who knows?

The difference, in this case, is just 8 hits. Liners that weren't caught, bloops that fell in, grounders that found holes.

He has normally hit better with runners on than with the bases empty (.294 as opposed to .267) - but this is pretty normal. He has normally hit a wee bit better with RISP (.300), and he has hit surprisingly well when its Close and Late (.292)

This year, all of those numbers have jumped by at least 30 points - .306 with bases empty, .332 with runners on, .375 with RISP.

Except this year he has sucked (.217) when its Close and Late.

Go figure.
[ Reply to This ]
robertdudek - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:16 PM EDT (#21225) #
As noted by other postres. $2 500-level tickets are available for the final home series versus the Yankees. Here's an excerpt from a press release sent to Batter's Box:

"The $2.00 ticket price will only be available to those customers that sign up for the Club’s electronic newsletter, THE INSIDE PITCH, at the time of purchase. THE INSIDE PITCH is distributed free of charge by MLB.com and www.bluejays.com directly to a subscriber’s email address before each Blue Jays’ homestand. It contains information on upcoming games, special events and promotions and discount offers on Blue Jays merchandise."

If you have purchased $9 tickets for the series already you'll be eligible for a coupons to be used for the 2005 season.
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT (#21226) #
I feel stupid for not spotting the closer effect. After some very quick and dirty changes to calculations (which will therefore not be quite accurate), let me revise the conclusion on "close and late" hitting.

There is some evidence that Detroit hits worse. .223 in "close and late" situations, .284 in others. A lot more than the expected .014 drop-off due to the closer effect. However even this difference, which appears to be overwhelmingly important, is only somewhat significant in the statistical sense. This is because the sample size of "close and late" situations is small (only 775 AB in this case).

Apart from Detroit, there is no evidence that any team hits significantly better or worse compared to how they all do, in close and late situations.

Therefore, provisionally, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "clutch" team. (Individual players is another question, although I would expect the same answer, particularly because sample sizes will be so much smaller.)
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:26 PM EDT (#21227) #
"He has normally hit better with runners on than with the bases empty (.294 as opposed to .267) - but this is pretty normal."

Not sure I understand -- normal in what sense? If it's normal that someone would hit better with runners on, doesn't that support the notion that players raise their play when something's at stake?

Also, it seems wrong-headed as a general rule to compare team stats with RISP versus bases empty, etc., because players who wobble in pressure situations would counteract the rise of those who come through. The averages would average out.

I take the points about players with higher averages hitting better with RISP generally. But sometimes the thing that seems intuitively true is in fact true. We just haven't figured out how to explain it.
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:32 PM EDT (#21228) #
If it's normal that someone would hit better with runners on, doesn't that support the notion that players raise their play when something's at stake?

I believe it is due to the compromised nature of infield defense when runners are on base. Holding runners on, infield in, etc.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT (#21229) #
But I can't shake the memory of Alomar and Molitor consistently coming through in the clutch. It seems reasonable to me that certain players have the ability and the motivation to focus that much harder when there are runners to be cashed.

There's been some research done on this. There is the (extremely) rare player who can be shown to raise his level of ability in the clutch. Molitor is one such case, where his rise in performance over his career in clutch situations was statistically significant.

Still, it's not at the level where you would be able to notice by watching, not even if you watched every single game and had a photographic memory. A difference of, say, one hit every 50 at-bats is just not perceptible, I'm sorry. (Molitor's rise in batting average between RISP and having no one on, was about 12 points, or one hit every 80 ABs).

I don't doubt that you remember Molitor coming through often in the clutch. He came through often because he was a good hitter... same for Roberto Alomar.

Frankly, in Molitor's case, I'd be inclined to think than rather than raising his level of play in the clutch, he was more likely dogging it in non-clutch situations. But that's just me. When one is performing at the level of a major league baseball player, it's pretty damn hard to gain intensity. It's much easier to lose intensity or concentration, because such a high level is demanded to begin with.

So for a Molitor (or especially a Pat Tabler, whose performance with runners on vs. bases empty is massively different) I don't think the answer is that their game is raised when they are in pressure situations, but rather lowered when they could get away with it. I wouldn't be surprised if the supposedly "clutch" hitters aren't clutch at all; they're just lazy.
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#21230) #
Not sure I understand -- normal in what sense? If it's normal that someone would hit better with runners on, doesn't that support the notion that players raise their play when something's at stake?

As a whole, baseball players hit .265 with RISP and .267 without, so far this season.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:36 PM EDT (#21231) #
doesn't that support the notion that players raise their play when something's at stake?

No, because pitchers are also trying to raise their level of play then.

OBP in men-on-base situations, however, is probably higher for two additional reasons - pitchers are less likely to give a guy a good pitch to hit with runners on leading to more walks, and once a pitcher falls apart, the hitters are likely to be hitting with runners on.
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:39 PM EDT (#21232) #
"Frankly, in Molitor's case, I'd be inclined to think than rather than raising his level of play in the clutch, he was more likely dogging it in non-clutch situations."

Ah! You stab me to the quick, sir. Pistols at dawn.

"As a whole, baseball players hit .265 with RISP and .267 without, so far this season."

My point about averages of clutch and non-clutch players cancelling each other out still holds.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:48 PM EDT (#21233) #
My seconds will approach yours to sort out the details. Shall we duel at Bayfront Park, or on the Mountain?
[ Reply to This ]
_RhyZa - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:48 PM EDT (#21234) #
Off Topic: Nice article regarding Carlos' political stance on ESPN Page 2
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:48 PM EDT (#21235) #
What Craig says makes a great deal of sense, in all respects.

I don't know how the statistical analysis he refers to was done, but we should also probably consider how many baseball players there have been (lots!). Even if *all* baseball players hit no differently in clutch situations, a small number will could well have wildly differences between their clutch and non-clutch statistics, and which could be statistically very significant for those individuals, simply by chance. (When doing statistical tests very many times over, such as looking at lots of individual players, this effect is difficult to account for without loss of power. Nonetheless it's possible that it was accounted for.)

A difference of 12 points, over Molitor's 10k or so ABs, looks only partly significant (back of envelope calculation) and could certainly be attributed to chance when you consider how many players are involved. I don't have all the data for this though.

My point about averages of clutch and non-clutch players cancelling each other out still holds.

Sure. I was looking for *teams* which might have hit better in the clutch. Individual players is a different question. But Craig is saying that the answer is almost the same.
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 01:57 PM EDT (#21236) #
I will go to my grave, likely with Craig's bullet hole in my chest, believing that there are certain hitters I would rather have up in certain clutch situations, and certain hitters who will make me shield my eyes.

I guess it just ain't statistically provable.
[ Reply to This ]
_mr predictor - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:06 PM EDT (#21237) #
PofH,
Are you suggesting there are certain players of equal (statistical) ability that you would rather see at the plate in clutch situations?

In other words, is it obvious to you that you'd rather have say Manny than ARod in such a situation, or just that you'd rather have say Tejada than Woodward at the dish?

Who are the "great" players who underperform in the clutch?
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:12 PM EDT (#21238) #
MGL did a massive study on clutch hitting on Primer about a year ago. He conclusively determined that Alfredo Griffin was a clutch hitter and that Jack Clark was a poor hitter in the clutch. All right, I overstate a bit, but the relatively few players in the "clutch" category were not on balance, particularly ones who you'd wish to have up there when the chips are down.

So, prisoner, I think you're confusing "good" with "clutch". Having Alfredo Griffin or Garth Iorg up there in key situations made me shield my eyes, whether or not they hit better in clutch situations than in non-clutch ones.
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:15 PM EDT (#21239) #
Are you suggesting there are certain players of equal (statistical) ability that you would rather see at the plate in clutch situations?

My first attempt at italics, I hope that worked.
Yeah, I'd say Manny and Ortiz are two guys I'd rather not face with the game on the line. Jeter and Williams would be two more. I have less of a sense that ARod would hurt me.

This is all just hunch stuff, though. I admit it. I don't have the stats to back me up.

"Who are the "great" players who underperform in the clutch?"

I don't know about great, but aside from one particular at bat (which I was lucky enough to witness in person) I'd say Joe Carter was a guy that used to make me cringe.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT (#21240) #
he was more likely dogging it in non-clutch situations.

Reggie Jackson used to say to Eddie Murray "Eddie, if you would stop giving away at bats when its 9-2, you'd be the MVP every year."

baseball players hit .265 with RISP and .267 without

Andrew - where did you get those figures? If it doesn't involve adding and long division, you've made my day! :-)
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:19 PM EDT (#21241) #
Magpie,

I used the ESPN team-batting stats page http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=9 and totted up AB and H. Then the same with only RISP selected. Subtract one from t'other to get AB and H without RISP. Divide H by AB in each case.

I might have messed it up of course, especially as the cut-and-paste into Excel involved a bit of jiggery pokery.
[ Reply to This ]
Joe - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#21242) #
http://me.woot.net
Sorry to break it to you, but statistics is reality. :) "Statistically provable" means "actually true."
[ Reply to This ]
_Moffatt - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#21243) #
Ahem. Table One is still waiting for its cuttlefish.

Sorry. I might be a bit scarce over the next couple of days as I'm trying to meet a deadline.

Jordan wins 100 million points for correctly identifying Pink Floyd's Comfortably Numb. He also wins a picture of Count Floyd:



and, of course, a cuttlefish picture:

[ Reply to This ]
_Jordan - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#21244) #
Woo-hoo! My cuttlefish collection now sits at 2. My Count Floyd collection sits at 74.
[ Reply to This ]
_Moffatt - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:27 PM EDT (#21245) #
So your Cuttlefish with Count Floyds in Scoring Position (CFISP) is an anemic .027? You must not be very clutch. :)
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:28 PM EDT (#21246) #
"Statistically provable" means "actually true."

I'm going to have to quibble with you there. I'm a statistician (actually this isn't true at all, but I do teach stats so I have to keep the pretence up) and I think a more accurate statement would be:

"Statistically provable" means "very unlikely to be false, as long as a whole host of assumptions, which we made up, are correct"

The first lesson I teach my students is to hedge their conclusions.
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:28 PM EDT (#21247) #
Reggie Jackson used to say to Eddie Murray "Eddie, if you would stop giving away at bats when its 9-2, you'd be the MVP every year."

See, that's the kind of contextually relevant quote I wish I could come up with when I needed it.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:30 PM EDT (#21248) #
He conclusively determined that Alfredo Griffin was a clutch hitter and that Jack Clark was a poor hitter in the clutch.

This is also one of the factors that clouds the issue. If a .240 hitter hits .275 with RISP - and let's say he always done it, let's pretend its's a skill - is he a better clutch hitter than the .315 hitter whose performance drops to .290 in those situations?

It depends on whether you're measuring productivity or whether you're measuring changes in productivity.

Personally, I think I'll put Jack on and take my chances with Alfredo.

Pat Tabler

Two things about Pat, and one is intuitive. (!!) Tabler is exactly the kind of hitter one would expect to do well with the bases loaded. If there are two things most pitchers do not want to do when the sacks are full, its a) give up a HR; b) issue a walk. Tabler was exactly the kind of hitter you can challenge in that situation because he had no power. And because he was a good contact line drive hitter who didn't take a lot of walks, he did very well.... (.483)

But we're talking about 89 at bats. In twelve years. That's all. Sing with me, everyone...

"Small sample size!"
[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:31 PM EDT (#21249) #
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3486
There's a good article at BP that goes through Tommy John surgery. COMN.

I didn't realize that they took a tendon from your forearm (typically) to replace the ligament. In fact, to show how dumb I am, I thought the tendon that they use as a replacement was a vein until I actually saw a picture of it.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#21250) #
Andrew - OK, I was using ESPN too. Not too good at the cut and paste from those pages into a spreadsheet. So I was doing data entry.

It was like working or something awful like that!

Anyway I just took their team totals for Bases Empty and for Runners On - typed (moan, complain, moan!) them into my spreadsheet, and then ran the totals.

I got an AL BAVG of .266 with None On, and an AL BAVG of .276 for Runners On.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#21251) #
Reggie Jackson used to say to Eddie Murray "Eddie, if you would stop giving away at bats when its 9-2, you'd be the MVP every year."

You know, that's interesting, because there's certainly some potential merit to rolling over slightly when it's 9-2 in order to put ideas in the pitcher's head, make him think you're vulnerable to something, so that next time he gives you something better.

I also like Magpie's Tabler analysis. The one problem with that is, Tabler was so bad with the bases empty, and so much better with runners in scoring position (not just bases loaded) that something else has to be at work.
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#21252) #
Mike Green,

MGL did a massive study on clutch hitting on Primer about a year ago

I'm trying to find it any failing. Do you happen to have a link? I'm very interested to see how he deals with the multiple-test phenomenon.
[ Reply to This ]
_Andrew K - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:38 PM EDT (#21253) #
Magpie,

I was using Runners in Scoring Position. I daresay Runners On is a bit different (perhaps because of the hole between 1B and 2B?)
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#21254) #
The first lesson I teach my students is to hedge their conclusions.

You devil.

Manny and Ortiz are two guys I'd rather not face with the game on the line. Jeter and Williams would be two more.

Paging Mr Gleeman! Paging Mr Gleeman!
[ Reply to This ]
_Jobu - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:46 PM EDT (#21255) #
Wow, that tommy john article was great. For the longest time I had no idea what the hell a Tommy John surgery was other than it was something about the ligaments in an arm.

Speaking of cutting people open, anyone willing to reform DOC'S INTERNS when HLH has his next Skydome start? The scrubs are waiting....
[ Reply to This ]
Joe - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:51 PM EDT (#21256) #
http://me.woot.net
Andrew, I was replying to PoH's comment that he'd take certain players over others because he thought they were better clutch hitters even though it wasn't "statistically provable." Whether or not a player is a better clutch hitter is not only statistically provable, it's easily shown to be true or false.

Well, actually, in the spirit of hedging, I should hedge that. Whether or not a player has been a better clutch hitter in the past is easily proven or disproven. It's a decent predictor of the future, but not perfect.
[ Reply to This ]
_David R - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT (#21257) #
Next spring training the Jays should invite a few extra non-roster players next year to stand at second and third during batting practice. There are tons of speedsters who can't hit stuck in the minors that would welcome the opportunity. Anyone with the last name "Goodwin" for example...
[ Reply to This ]
_David R - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT (#21258) #
I am not Pat Tabler
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:56 PM EDT (#21259) #
Andrew K, I tried to find the article on Primer's archives, but there is a very limited selection of MGL's (Mitchel Lichtman's) work, and definitely not the piece on clutch hitting.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#21260) #
I was using Runners in Scoring Position.

There we go. For some reason, I thought you meant runners on, period.

My assumption has always been that hitting increases with runners on (and almost entirely because of changes in defenseive positioning - the 1B on the bag, the middle infielders cheating for the DP).

It then starts to decline with RISP because that's when people like Gordon and KRod start to show up...

and it declines BigTime when its "Close and Late" because of LOTS of people like KRod and Rivera and Gagne...

there's certainly some potential merit to rolling over slightly when it's 9-2 in order to put ideas in the pitcher's head

I've actually heard of players doing that - not just hitters, but pitchers as well. For some reason, the name "Maddux" has come to mind.

I'm pretty sure, though, that Eddie Murray just lost interest when it was 9-2! Which is not the same as dogging it, of course.

Joe Carter was a guy that used to make me cringe

He didn't make me cringe, but then I didn't have big expectations. He was a .260 hitter with about a .460 slugging percentage. No reason to expect a whole lot...

STATS used to publish all kinds of trivial but fun stuff (who led the league in throws to first). Year after year, Joe Carter would lead the majors in foul pop outs.

Which does beat leading the majors in grounding into double plays.
[ Reply to This ]
_My Names not Ry - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 03:21 PM EDT (#21261) #
searched a couple places for an actual game action picture of don ho, i mean brandon league, all i found was a faint one on yahoo, where the goggles were not prevalent, anyone able to dig up a picture for me? Of League that is, if you cant a cuttlefish with goggles might do.
[ Reply to This ]
_G.T. - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT (#21262) #
You know, that's interesting, because there's certainly some potential merit to rolling over slightly when it's 9-2 in order to put ideas in the pitcher's head

I dunno, but I can't really see how a player can really "roll over" at the plate. It's easy enough for a pitcher to take something off a pitch, a baserunner or fielder to not quite run all out, but a hitter? How do you really ease up with a ball coming at you so quickly? Certainly no sane person would concentrate less...

I'd think that hitting's too reactive a skill for anyone to really either "roll over" or "try harder" (with postitive results, anyways) based on the situation. Just one more reason why I'm skeptical about the idea of a clutch hitter. ("Clutch pitching", OTOH? A completely different story)
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT (#21263) #
I've actually heard of players doing that - not just hitters, but pitchers as well. For some reason, the name "Maddux" has come to mind

Oooh, the game within the game. I knew there was a reason I liked baseball best.
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 03:39 PM EDT (#21264) #
Now if only that explained why Hinske lets so many down-the-middle fastballs go by.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 03:52 PM EDT (#21265) #
the game within the game. I knew there was a reason I liked baseball best.

You should like this (I sure do!), its Curt Schilling on Sons of Sam Horn talking about Greg Maddux>

I watched a game about 10 years ago, Maddux was pitching in SF, bases loaded, Dave Martinez hitting. 2-2 count. Maddux throws ball three, way way outside, a fastball, then goes 3-2 and throws a picture perfect change up, not even close to the zone. Martinez swings, inning over.

It stuck with me so much that the next year when I saw him I asked him about it. He remembered it, he told me on 2-2, the crowd was pumped in SF, he had great command of his changeup, he knew that 3-2 Martinez would sit FB and would be swinging and that the crowd would be even louder, the situation even more tense on the hitter as well as the runners would be going, always a nice distraction, something he wasn't sure of 2-2, so he intentionally threw ball 3 to ramp up the situation, lure Martinez into a false sense of security, then pulled the string on him.

All kinds of other good stuff there as well. COMN to have a look.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:00 PM EDT (#21266) #
Magpie, I'd want to do a Tracer on that one.

the situation even more tense on the hitter as well as the runners would be going, always a nice distraction, something he wasn't sure of 2-2

If the bases were indeed loaded, he'd be pretty damn sure that the runners weren't going 2-2.

Nice story, though. Gutty to intentionally throw 2 balls with a 2-2 count and the bases loaded.
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:01 PM EDT (#21267) #
Must be my browser (Safari), the COMN isn't working for me in this case.
But the Maddux anecdote is a beautiful thing.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:02 PM EDT (#21268) #
if only that explained why Hinske lets so many down-the-middle fastballs go by

As far as I'm concerned, Hinske lets too many fastballs go by for strikes becasue he can't hit the offspeed pitch unless he's looking for it. And you can't conceivably catch up to the fastball if you're looking offspeed, no matter where it is. So he takes that pitch (somewhat commendably, I guess) instead of trying to swing at it.

And why can't he hit the offspeed pitch? Because he's a front-foot hitter who can't keep his damn weight back. Arrgghh... if only he would STAY THE FARK BACK he could hit .300 with power...
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#21269) #
Because he's a front-foot hitter who can't keep his damn weight back. Arrgghh... if only he would STAY THE FARK BACK he could hit .300 with power...

I've opened a wound. I'm sorry.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:16 PM EDT (#21270) #
Magpie, I'd want to do a Tracer on that one.

The principle of what Schilling is saying, though (or what Maddux is saying to Schilling), is right. Call it an illustrative lesson.

Games in which Maddux faced the Giants in San Francisco with Martinez in the lineup for the Giants...

1. April 15, 1993. Not likely here... a mid-April game with only 17,000 in the stands and Maddux got roughed up.

2. August 25, 1993. Maddux pitched a gem in front of a big Candlestick crowd, but Martinez did not strike out in this game.

3. June 1, 1994. I'll bet anything this is the game... Martinez pinch-hit for Torres in the seventh inning and struck out, Maddux was uncharacteristically wild but pitched well and won 1-0. 28,000 in Candlestick.

It was 10 years ago exactly. Remind me not to play Concentration for money with Curt Schilling...
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:21 PM EDT (#21271) #
By the way, also on that day, the defending World Series Champions, the Toronto Blue Jays, missed an opportunity to climb out of the AL East basement as the bullpen (Tony Castillo and Scott Brow) blew a 5-4 lead against the Oakland A's and lost 9-5.
[ Reply to This ]
_Jonny German - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:24 PM EDT (#21272) #
How do you really ease up with a ball coming at you so quickly? Certainly no sane person would concentrate less...

Care for a ping-pong analogy? Good!

I play ping-pong at lunch time with my co-workers. When it's a tight game, I'm trying to play smart and maximize my chances of getting each point. When I'm ahead 18-6, I'm inclined to practice crazy slices or ridiculous smashes which I haven't perfected and therefore have a low success rate. I can see a hitter doing the same sort of thing, swinging for the fences or trying to take everything the other way even if the pitcher or count is not ideal for such.

I remember hearing or reading recently (perhaps right here) that Ichiro's apparent struggles in his first Major League spring training were actually just him trying out some new things - he had no doubts that he could hit major league pitching.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:28 PM EDT (#21273) #
(And the day after, the Jays would pick Florida high-school shortstop Kevin Witt with their first-round pick in the entry draft... and also a California high-school shortstop with their 54th round pick. Fella by the name of Chris Woodward...)
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:33 PM EDT (#21274) #
the COMN isn't working for me in this case.

I like to visit the Sons of Sam Horn. They post many colourful and funny pictures, they now believe in "Hazel Mae mojo," and when the Sox are losing... well, its pretty funny.

The Sons of Sam Horn live here:

http://b21.ezboard.com/bsonsofsamhorn

On this page, you will see a link called:

S.o.S.H. Boneyard
Hallowed ground where classic threads are laid to rest. Drop in and revisit some memorable debates and discussions...

The thread you want is called "Let's talk baseball, real baseball." Schilling (who uses the handle Gehrig38) talks shop.

Magpie, I'd want to do a Tracer on that one.

Alas, Retrosheet does not seem to have the play-by-play for 1993 and 1994 (the Dave Martinez era in San Francisco.)

I find three Greg Maddux starts in San Francisco over those two years.

On 15 April 1993, Maddux lost 6-1. Bonds hit a 3 run HR in the first inning. Martinez batted 2nd and went 0-4 with a K. Probably not the game.

On 25 August 1993, Maddux beat the Giants 9-1, It was 4-0 after 3 innings, and Martinez went 0-4 but with no Ks. Definitely not the game.

But...

On 1 June 1994, Maddux won 1-0 in Candelstick. And he must have been in trouble all day - in 8 innings, he gave up 6 hits, 6 walks (! Maddux!) and hit a guy. His SS and RF made errors behind him, although I don't know if that put anyone else on base.

And Dave Martinez pinch hit for Salomon Torres in the bottom of the 6th and struck out. If Schilling's memory is accurate, I'm betting this is the game.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:34 PM EDT (#21275) #
Oh great. I do all that work...

and Craig did it faster!

Well, I'm cooking. Yeah. That's my excuse.
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:37 PM EDT (#21276) #
Another Maddux story, which may be an entire falsehood, goes something like this. Facing the Astros, he had a shutout going. Late in the game, he threw a meatball to Bagwell (don't know the count) who homered. The point of the pitch was to put it in Bagwell's mind for the playoffs, and then to never throw it again.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#21277) #
Thanks, Craig for the tracer. If that is the game (pbp data not available, so someone would have to check newspaper archives for further clues), it raises an interesting question.

On the day in question, June 1, 1994, Greg Maddux did not have his trademark control. He walked six in 8 innings of work. By the seventh, that should have been pretty obvious. With the bases loaded in a 1-0 game and a 2-2 count, to throw two balls way, way out of the strike zone intentionally when the batter knows you do not have your usual control does not take guts, it takes balls to the max. Not that anyone has ever accused Maddux of being a withering sort.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#21278) #
Remind me not to play Concentration for money with Curt Schilling...

What professional baseball players know and remember is generally not what you and I know and remember. A different kind of focus. Tom Boswell's 1980s books are full of examples. He has a story of asking a red-hot George Brett when was the last time he swung and missed a pitch. Brett instantly remembered the game (it was about a week previous!), the situation, the pitcher, and how he got fooled.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:40 PM EDT (#21279) #
to throw two balls way, way out of the strike zone intentionally when the batter knows you do not have your usual control does not take guts, it takes balls to the max.

Plus it would turn the lineup over (he was batting for the pitcher.) In that case, no wonder it made such an impression on Schilling.
[ Reply to This ]
_#2JBrumfield - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#21280) #
According to Spencer Fordin, Chacin is pitching Sunday's game - so its possible he could pitch again vs. the Yankees next weekend. 10/1 would be 5 days after that start...

You're right, Kevin. Sorry about the confusion about thinking Chacin would not be pitching at the Dome this season. I went by Spencer Fordin's column on bluejays.com, which contained this error.

Pitching in: Roy Halladay returned from the disabled list on Tuesday night, and the Jays made room by outrighting Aquilino Lopez to Triple-A Syracuse. Toronto also announced its rotation for the next few days: Josh Towers and Dave Bush will get the ball in the first two games of the Baltimore series, and Gustavo Chacin will take the ball in the finale.

That should read the rotation for the Tampa Bay series this week-end with a stop to follow in Baltimore the following week.

So the rotation for the Yankees series at the Dome should line up as Chacin, Halladay, and Lilly. I miss out on Bush, oh well.

That's it for this week's episode of "Cover My Ass" :)
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 04:49 PM EDT (#21281) #
Not that anyone has ever accused Maddux of being a withering sort.

Brass Ones, my friend, the man has Brass Ones.
[ Reply to This ]
_Prisoner of Ham - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:04 PM EDT (#21282) #
Magpie, thanks for the pointer to the Schilling thread. Enjoyed it.
[ Reply to This ]
_Tassle - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:11 PM EDT (#21283) #
Am I worth it? Well in the confines of my workplace it depends on who you ask. Is it right/fair that I make 15 lifetimes worth of teachers, policemans, firemans salaries in one year? I can't answer that, though I do know they all deserve to be making alot more than they currently are IMO.

That could be the single greatest quote from a modern sports entity ever. I don't think I've ever heard any athlete speak so candidly about their enormous wealth. Bravo.
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan Lind - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:32 PM EDT (#21284) #
The Jays rotation is now Roy Halladay, Ted Lilly, Gustavo Chacin, David Bush and Josh Towers.
[...]
How do the Bauxites feel about the new rotation?

It's alright. It would be cool to have a Hard-Throwing Righty in between Lilly and Chacin, though.

:)
[ Reply to This ]
_Rob - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:36 PM EDT (#21285) #
Too bad Roy Halladay doesn't post here...has there ever been a player post at Da Box? Even Dave Berg would suffice.
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan Lind - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:45 PM EDT (#21286) #
There's that guy that knows Bob File. Does he count?
[ Reply to This ]
Coach - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:49 PM EDT (#21287) #
Reed Johnson posted a comment after his interview. Many of the players' families read the site, and thanks to road trips by Mike Moffatt, Robert Dudek, myself and especially Gerry McDonald, we've become fairly well known among the minor-leaguers.
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan Lind - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT (#21288) #
Hey, that's cool. I didn't notice Reed posting there. at 1 AM though?

Or I guess 4 AM.

Incidently, how can you guys tell if it's legit or it's an imposter?

Cause we've had lots of imposters (as you know.)
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan Lind - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:56 PM EDT (#21289) #
After reading the comments after Reed's in that thread, I can now understand why players do not like posting in public forums.

LOL @ Keith Talent, though.
[ Reply to This ]
_Rob - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:57 PM EDT (#21290) #
Reed Johnson...ah, I knew that too! I just read over that interview again last week. Forgot about Sparky (sorry, Jobu -- I should never do that).
[ Reply to This ]
_Rob - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 05:59 PM EDT (#21291) #
Oh, and I noticed the SoSH Minor League Forum is nothing compared to us. ;)
[ Reply to This ]
_Keith Talent - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:02 PM EDT (#21292) #
: )
[ Reply to This ]
Coach - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT (#21293) #
how can you guys tell if it's legit or it's an imposter?

Ryan, we can verify it by talking to the player. We do get press passes and are often on the field during batting practice.

In Sparky's case, I told him when it had been published, and he promised to check it out. I'm sure that many other players have at least visited, but as that thread illustrates so well, we have no control over who else posts, or what they say.

One of the advantages of having registration, like Sons of Sam Horn, is that more players might feel as comfortable as Schilling does about posting. It's quite possible that some of our anonymous visitors are celebrities, but if the site was more "secure" from nuisances, maybe more would make their identities public.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:09 PM EDT (#21294) #
It would be cool to have a Hard-Throwing Righty in between Lilly and Chacin, though.

Yeah, but those 1-5 sequences are always toast by the middle of May aren't they?

However, everybody who remembers how the 1989 Jays started the season (Dave Stieb and four - four! - finesse lefties) agrees that its most important to have a mix in the rotation.

As for that particular Hard-Throwing Righty, what can you do. He should still be here. Not because we should have thrown $ 15 million at him, but because we shouldn't have burned up his service time when he was 21, 22, 23, and 24.
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan Lind - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:12 PM EDT (#21295) #
That's cool. I think Sosh also has fairly strict registrattion rules, as well. I don't think they let just anyone in there.

A little OT: Do you think you can get some more "Front Office" interviews in the near future? Those interviews with JP and Keith Law are terrific, but it's been awhile...
[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:13 PM EDT (#21296) #
While we're on Maddux stories....if I can remember correctly:

Back when the Braves played at AFC Stadium there were seats at the front of the dugouts (they would sit and watch the game similiar to how the Jays bullpen watches a game...except in the dugout).

Maddux was talking with another pitcher during the game and after a particular pitch he told his teammate to get ready to move out of the way. Sure enough on the very next pitch a screaming foul ball came headed directly at them.

Maddux knew the situation, the pitch and location that would be coming, how the batter would react to it, and the result. Not bad.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:16 PM EDT (#21297) #
we shouldn't have burned up his service time when he was 21, 22, 23, and 24

I can't agree with this. Escobar was clearly ready for prime time in '97 and '98. By the time he began struggling, it was pretty much too late to take it back and send him to the minors - his options ran out after '99. I would have sent him back to the minors in '99 when he was really struggling there for a while, but I'm not sure 30 or 60 days of servic time would have made a difference in Escobar's case.
[ Reply to This ]
_ntr Dave Berg - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:17 PM EDT (#21298) #
Why you little....
[ Reply to This ]
Coach - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:18 PM EDT (#21299) #
Do you think you can get some more "Front Office" interviews in the near future?

Sure. Gerry's hoping to sit down with Dick Scott during the Yankees series, and I will ask J.P. about doing a season review at his convenience. We did talk to Law and Ricciardi in June, along with Jon Lalonde, in the two-part draft special, and they are busy guys, so we try not to bother them too often.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT (#21300) #
Escobar was clearly ready for prime time in '97 and '98.

I can't disagree - he certainly pitched well in the AL for Gaston in 1997. In retrospect, I wish he'd been a September callup (he was only 21, fer Crissakes!), pitched well, and competed for a job in spring 1998.

Which he wouldn't have won, because he was hurting in spring 1998 and didn't pitch well at all.

After the Guzman trade in mid 1998, he went into the rotation and was lights out. No turning back after that.

But he wasn't a very good starter when he was 23, and he lost his rotation job when he was 24.

When he was 25 he started the year as a setup man, then got moved to the rotation and pitched well until the forearm issue popped up.

When he was 26 he was an erratic closer.

When he was 27 he was a bad closer and then an effective starter.

And now he's 28 and he's figured it out. And he's gone.

I have to think this could have been managed better. But there were five different managers (plus Mel Queen!) and probably as many different pitching coaches, too.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 07:01 PM EDT (#21301) #
he's 28 and he's figured it out. And he's gone

Heh, I don't think he's figured it out. Mark my words: next year he'll be back to being Enigmatic Old Kelvim.
[ Reply to This ]
_Jobu - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 07:22 PM EDT (#21302) #
(sorry, Jobu -- I should never do that).

It's alright. I'll forgive you if you look at this sullen and overly dramatic photo of Sparky.



PS. My birthday is comming up in a month. If anyone could get me something signed by Reed saying "I recognize you exist" I'd be your friend for 37 years.
[ Reply to This ]
_Lefty - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 08:45 PM EDT (#21303) #
I don't know about great, but aside from one particular at bat (which I was lucky enough to witness in person) I'd say Joe Carter was a guy that used to make me cringe.

Just in from work and reading the round up. This is probably a dead thread now but I think I know what you were getting at here. Very good discussion. But I can say this, if there was a runner on third with less than two outs Carter almost alway smoked a fly to the outfield for the sacrifice. At least thats what it seemed like to me, he was Mr. Automatic in that regard. But I'm not sure if that qualifies as hitting with RISP because the ball was alomost always caught. I swear though, he had to pick-up thirty plus rbi's every season that way.
[ Reply to This ]
_6-4-3 - Wednesday, September 22 2004 @ 09:18 PM EDT (#21304) #
One of the things I most remember reading from Bill James' historical baseball abstract is his rating of Joe Carter. He mentions that Carter had a reputation as a clutch hitter, then more or less debunks that idea (I think he might've done it by comparing him to the average player, or to Bonds).

Anyways, as for the Sac Flies, I was origianlly going to say that you were dead wrong: Carter hit 8 per season, 13 was his peak. But, he led the league twice (in '92 and '94), and he's 14th all-time in sac flies (Between Tony Perez and Al Kaline), so he was good at it.

I'm not sure if anyone cares anymore, but "Close and Late" is officially "results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.". So basically it's a slightly tighter save situation.

And, that Speier song is amazing, that "Named For Hank Scorpio" graphic is gold, and I want a League "Hawaiian Punch-Out" T-Shirt.

That is all.
[ Reply to This ]
_Fozzy - Thursday, September 23 2004 @ 01:49 AM EDT (#21305) #
Kevin, the shirt looks awesome. Might I suggest the words "Big League" under it?

I can just imagine it now, adorned in lais and hawaiian shirts, a devout group in Skydome next to the O-Drum, calling themselves "League's Lackeys" or something to that effect. Take that Sheff's chefs!
[ Reply to This ]
_Jobu - Thursday, September 23 2004 @ 02:23 AM EDT (#21306) #
Yeah, and we can all say we got lai-ed in the Skydome.

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your server on the way out.
[ Reply to This ]
_Wayne H. - Thursday, September 23 2004 @ 05:16 AM EDT (#21307) #
The little Hawaiian Punch Out dude would look cool with goggles.

I hope that's not too trademark infringing.
[ Reply to This ]
_tangotiger - Friday, October 29 2004 @ 10:45 AM EDT (#21308) #
A couple of people were looking for MGL's piece on clutch hitting. In fact, that was written by an equally impressive analyst named Andy Dolphin. If you google Dolphin Clutch, it'll be one of the first few links.
[ Reply to This ]
Jays Roundup - Hello. | 121 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.