I think the media gives the Cards a pass on being "sabermetric" on a account of La Russa.

Agreed. TLR sort of undoes any sabermetric vibes you'd get from that organization.

That being said, I think the Jays get way too much "credit" for being a sabermetric organization. A lot of their player personnel moves don't seem to make a lot of sense from a stathead lens.

There's four things that make the Jays a sabermetric team:

1. J.P. is from the Oakland organization, so he's sabermetric by proxy.
   
2. The team slashed payroll when J.P. first started
   
3. They hired Keith Law
   
4. They draft a lot of college players
   

In my view, it's silly to say the Jays are a stathead organization because of #1. As for number 2, they stopped slashing payroll a long time ago, and now they're just a low payroll team. There are quite a few low payroll teams that aren't "Moneyball" teams, though, so that shouldn't be enough to classify them as a sabr team.

Number 4 is a point in favour, but even so, a lot of the guys the Jays have picked in the draft are more "scouty" than they are results oriented. Particularly this year's draft, where the Jays passed on pitchers with better numbers to get other guys they wanted. So this is only a somewhat sabermetric area.

#3 is certainly a point in favour. The amount of credit you want to give for this point is how much influence you percieve KL to have. I have absolutely no idea how much influence any particular member of the Jays inner circle has, and I think it'd be impossible to tell unless you are a member of that inner circle.

I really don't see the Jays as a sabermetric or "Moneyball" team. The evidence just isn't there. I'm sure someone will retort that the Jays have grabbed a lot of useful players off of waivers. The problem is that EVERY team with a low payroll does this to some extent. You have to if you have a low payroll. There's no other way to fill all 25 roster slots.

---

In other news, I know the band for today's song, but I don't know the song itself. Grrrr. I suppose I could Google it, but that's kind of cheap. :)

There's four things that make the Jays a sabermetric team:

I think the main thing that gives the label is the way they play. No sacrificing and few stolen bases.

The other thing is that they like to acquire players that control the strike zone, on both sides - pitchers that throw strikes and hitters that swing at strikes. It's part of weighing performance more than tools, although not to the extent that most believe.

I think the main thing that gives the label is the way they play. No sacrificing and few stolen bases.

The other thing is that they like to acquire players that control the strike zone, on both sides - pitchers that throw strikes and hitters that swing at strikes. It's part of weighing performance more than tools, although not to the extent that most believe.

There's a great deal of truth to that, but some of the stats don't really bear that out:

AL Batting Ranks
--
HR: 12th of 14 in AL
BB: 8th of 14
SO: 4th of 14
SB: 13th of 14
SH: 13th of 14
SF: 11th of 14

AL Pitching Ranks
--
SO: 12th of 14
BB: 2nd highest of 14

Sure this team doesn't steal or sacrifice. They also don't hit homeruns, they're mediocre at controling the strikezone as hitters, and they're absolutely wretched doing it as pitchers.

There's also a difference between design and execution. They underperformed in so many ways this year that you can't take this year's stats as definitive proof that they are not a sabrmetric/Moneyball team.

There's a great deal of truth to that, but some of the stats don't really bear that out

Well, at the major league level I think the budget might come into play.

However, in terms of drafting, and the players we'll see over the next few years, there's a definite emphasis on that.

That's a good point Grimlock.

I think design and execution are largely the same thing when you get guys like Pat Hentgen and Miguel Batista, who weren't known for their ability to control the strikezone. Batista has always had well below average K/BB rates and Hentgen's great 2003 was largely due to an insanely low BIP average.

Batista has always had well below average K/BB rates

Well in 2003 it was 142/60. Prior to that it was about 1.5/1.

The jays are sort of like a sabr. team, but not really a sabr team ...

I think the organization goes to great length to teach that 2/3 medicoare players can do the job of a superstar( platooning ), as many prospects were not given at-bats to favor platooning. To me this seems foolish since the team is getting much deeper in minor league talent.I was wondering what people here think of this idea, in particular of signing a couple of good players instead of the superstar, and if you were the gm who would you sign.

IMO, as a lot of people here pointed out before, the LF position is a place where the jays are lacking a deserving bat. Why not sign someone like berkman or drew instead of the CAT/Reed platoon and a bunch of mediocare bats.

Prior to that it was about 1.5/1.

For a starting pitcher, that's quite low. This year a K/BB would put you at 70th out of 86 starting pitchers who pitched enough innings to qualify for the ERA title.

Even in 2003, which was clearly a career year, Batista ranked 36th out of 92.

This year Batista was 84th out of 86, ahead of only Kaz Ishii and Kirk Rueter.

That does not sound like a guy who controls the strikezone well... and Batista was JP's marquee pitching signing.

The Jays don't platoon all that much from a historical perspective. It's pretty tough to when you carry 7 or 8 relievers.

The idea to sign a big corner bat is a good one, but it carries a huge drawback: With a limited budget it means you have to get a bunch of guys who are around the major league minimum. Do people really want to go back to 2003's Tam and Creek style bullpen?

I don't have any problems with a Cat / Reed platoon. Cat can hit righties, Reed can hit lefties, and life is good. The only problem with that is I'm not sure if it'll happen. I don't have much faith in Cat's defense combined with Skydome's turf.

I think the big / signings little signings depend on Delgado, though. If the Jays can resign him, then they've got to go looking for the Valerio de los Santos type players on the bargain bin. But I'm fairly certain that no matter what Delgado does, the Jays have too many holes to fill (1st / bullpen / DH / starter / catcher (depending on Zaun) to spend too much in one area.

For a starting pitcher, that's quite low.

I know, just pointing out that 2003 was a good year for Batista's K/BB ratio (that is, not ALWAYS bad).

I know, just pointing out that 2003 was a good year for Batista's K/BB ratio (that is, not ALWAYS bad).

Why don't we go to an even smaller sample size? I'm sure there was a game where Batista struck out 8 guys and only walked one. ;)

The point remains, though, that J.P.'s talent acquisition doesn't really reflect the sabermetric truisms that you posted. I haven't even gotten into the acquiring of "scouty" minor league free-agents like Chad Hermansen and ignoring ones who can simply mash the ball like Cal Pickering.

Do people really want to go back to 2003's Tam and Creek style bullpen?

I was thinking that rosario, peterson, chacin, league, vermilya, etc. could be options for the bullpen this time around. I also don't think that spending big money on relievers is a good idea - exhibit A, B, C - ligtenbers, adams, speier.

I don't have a study, but hitters are a safer bet than relievers.

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/transactions.jsp?maj_team=tor&year=2004&month=4
J.P. is a mix of old-school and "SABR", if you will.

Yes, he hired a BP guy.
But he also has a scout's attachment to Hinske, and his relationship with Bordick and Sturtze brought them here when they wouldn't have been in Toronto under a true SABR-GM.

I haven't even gotten into the acquiring of "scouty" minor league free-agents like Chad Hermansen

This isn't the point you were making, but that doesn't make much sense -- letting Werth go, claiming Hermanson is the same player, then giving him a grand total of seven plate appearances.
In fact, most of April and May (COMN) was rather confusing to me.
April 13: Pond down, Hermansen up.
April 21: Hermansen down, Clark up.
May 13: Clark down, Pond up.

This isn't the point you were making, but that doesn't make much sense -- letting Werth go, claiming Hermanson is the same player, then giving him a grand total of seven plate appearances.

To be fair to J.P., I think Hermansen only got 7 AB because he got injured quickly after being called up.

exhibit A, B, C - ligtenbers, adams, speier... [b]ut hitters are a safer bet than relievers.

Right, which is why JP spent money on three mid-price guys, rather than one expensive bullpen ace. If relievers have no inherent reliability, then you ought to infuse some by diversifying your bullpen investment, as JP did.

What we need is a cleanup hitter who can play first base - Its the clear organizational weakness. At catcher we have Quiroz and Cash, and 2nd we have the O-Dog, at SS we have Adams and Hill. DH, 3B and LF can be filled by any of Crozier, Hill, Hattig, Hinske, Cat, Gross and even Reed (I'm hoping for Hill at 3B, Adams at SS, Cat at DH and Gross or Hattig in LF). V-Dub makes center a set position, RF is Rios' domain. Looking at 2006 and beyond we need a First Baseman above any other position and looking at the hitters named above, we are looking at a potentially deep lineup, but lacking a guy who we would want to insert into the #4 hole (Vernon perhaps, but then we need a 3 or a 5 hitter). There are other positions (LF, C) that should be filled with stopgaps for 2005, but our main need is a cleanup first baseman. We arent going to win in 2005, so I'd prefer Delgado and Reed Johnson as starters in 2005 then, for example, Palmeiro and Alou. Spend the money to get Delgado and Sexson, then fill out the roster as best as it can be done with the little money remaining. More rookie minimum players are on the way in the next 18 months. Thats my opinion anyway

Sign Delgado!

I don't have any problems with a Cat / Reed platoon. Cat can hit righties, Reed can hit lefties, and life is good

I don't think this is as simple as that. Beside having to carry an extra bat, I doubt both of them combined will be able to produce enough for LF. CAT had an OPS of 836 vs. righties and Reed 790 vs. lefties, not impressive for a left fielder with subpar fielding whenever a righty pitches. In addition, CAT has had all sorts of medical problems.

I guess if it comes to choosing between a superstar adn products from the farm system at some positions, vs. filling the roster with average performers, I choose the former.

I have a feeling that's what is going to happen Geoff. I don't think the Jays want to take the huge PR hit that will occur if Delgado becomes an Oriole or Mariner.

Depending on your viewpoint that may or may not be a good idea. We already know that Tyler thinks it's about as good an idea as sticking your head in the oven and turning it to 450. :)

I don't think signing delgado is such a good idea, unless it somewhere around 8 - 9 Million a year. He is 32, has a bad knee, missed 30 games, etc.

I think the outfield is the position to stock up this offseason, the talent available is very good. I would prefer the trade route to get a 1B, and there are many options out there. However, If we would go for an infield bat, I think glaus is the best talent at 3b/1b/dh.

Has anyone seen the forecast for tonight's game? Hope it's not a rainout like last week - it was so wet, toads were hopping over the sprinkler sprockets like mad, and even the sure-footed Pokey Reese was seen to fall down.

http://tsn.ca/mlb/teams/player_bio.asp?player_id=1385&hubname=TOR
To be fair to J.P., I think Hermansen only got 7 AB because he got injured quickly after being called up.

Hmmm, now that I've gone through the boxscores for the Chiefs, Hermansen didn't appear for at least a month after he was DFA's on April 21. So maybe he was hurt, after all. I forgot what happened to him -- I never even saw him play for the Jays this year -- but it appears he was hurt.

What do people here think of Simon Pond's future with the club? Is he basically redundant now, with Crozier being better with the stick and the glove?

Actually, I didn't know Crozier hit that well in AAA this year:
Pond: .278/.325/.434
Crozier: .292/.380/.528

And is Howie Clark going to hang around as a AAAA player? I can see him sticking with the Jays; same role as this year.

Was Bob File really on the Mr. Wilner show last night? I thought he wasn't even a blue jay anymore.

I don't think this is as simple as that. Beside having to carry an extra bat, I doubt both of them combined will be able to produce enough for LF. CAT had an OPS of 836 vs. righties and Reed 790 vs. lefties, not impressive for a left fielder with subpar fielding whenever a righty pitches. In addition, CAT has had all sorts of medical problems.

I alluded to Cat's medical problems and my distrust of his fielding abilities. But I don't think that LF is problem #1. To me, (in a simplistic way) the problems go:

1) Finding power production (out of 1st / DH)
2) Finding a way to patch up the rotation and bullpen on the cheap
3) Making daily sacrifices to the baseball gods so that Vernon Wells will produce at his 2003 level, and Hinske will just produce.
4) Figuring out what to do with the Cat and Johnson.

If there's a LF that can push Cat to DH and Johnson to the bench, that's fine, but he'd have to be cheap. I can see the Jays picking someone like that up, if only to avoid a repeat of Berg in left field and Cat having to field.

If there's a LF that can push Cat to DH and Johnson to the bench, that's fine, but he'd have to be cheap. I can see the Jays picking someone like that up, if only to avoid a repeat of Berg in left field and Cat having to field.

I agree. Im fine with a Cat/Reed platoon in LF for now as there are much higher priorities that need to be addressed. If a better LF than Cat falls into JP's lap for cheap, then by all means pick him up, otherwise the money is better spent elsewhere.

The other thing to consider in this equation is that you cannot sign both a LF and a DH, cause Cat has to start somewhere, it's either or. I would think that it would be cheaper and easier to find a good DH than it would to find a LF who is better than the Cat.

2. O-dog
3. V-dub
4. Carlos
5. DH masher
6. Healthy Cat
7. Rios

I'd be happy with that heart of the order provided the key number 5 could be found.

you can't take this year's stats as definitive proof that they are not a sabrmetric/Moneyball team

Or you could listen to the GM talk for about five minutes. He appears to believe in very few of the "sabermetric dogmas". Or, as Mike points out, it's pretty obvious that

J.P.'s talent acquisition doesn't really reflect the sabermetric truisms that you posted.

2. O-dog
3. V-dub
4. Carlos
5. Frank Thomas
6. Healthy Cat
7. Rios

How about this? I just noticed that he could be a free agent this year (both he and the team have can pick up the option for '05) and I think that he would be an amazing 5th batter and DH.

If CHW are really trying to sign Magglio, they might have to lose payroll somewhere else and need to either let him go or trade him- I would be quite happy with that as well.

Anyways, that is what I'd like to see this year...plus with all the talk about FA pitchers like Pavano/Clement/Pedro/Morris, O.Perez seems to be forgotten; at a cheap price I think he'd be a good risk to take, but I have no idea of what he would make this next year

The Spencer Fordin of the White Sox has this to say:

"As each day goes by, it seems less and less likely that Ordonez will return to the White Sox, with the team having until December to offer him arbitration"

and

"For starters, Frank Thomas will definitely be returning to the White Sox in 2005"

Apparently, it's a player's option, and there's no way that Thomas will decline his own option, given that he's coming off of ankle surgery that'll see him recover during or after Spring Training.

Nolan, Magglio will be WAY too expensive for the Jays. Even with his injury this year, his agent is still asking in the 15-17 MIL range. He probably won't quite get that, but he certainly won't be sub-10. My prediction-he'll stay in Chicago, either Cubs or White Sox.

Dr. Zarco....what I meant was that if magglio stays with the ChiSox, then they may have to cut payroll and dump or trade Thomas. If that happens, I'd love to see the Jays make a run at him. Does anyone know what his option for next year is worth?

Nope, I have no illusions that the Jays can sign Ordonez

2. O-dog
3. V-dub
4. Carlos
5. Richard Sexson
6. Healthy Cat
7. Rios

In a dream world I'd like to see that, but that's probably too optimistic.

And I just checked Dugout Dollars to see what Thomas' player option is worth...11 million for next year. Safe to say that he'll be excersing it.

So the only way for him to end up a Jay is to be traded and have the Sox pick up some (1/3?) of his salary.

Oh well, I was just thinking out loud.

Arizona Fall League info from Sat game.

Aaron Hill played ss and went 3 for 4 with 2 rbi's. He is now hitting .339 .

*exercising

Or you could listen to the GM talk for about five minutes. He appears to believe in very few of the "sabermetric dogmas".

Craig, being as I'm not a very observant listener, which issues does he not believe in?

He seems to believe in drafting college players, not bunting or stealing, and he values on base percentage. Beyond that I have no idea what he does or does not believe. Well, I guess he doesn't seem to put much stock in fielding stats. What else?

Here is other AFL news. On Friday, Aaron Hill played third base for the second time. On Saturday, Big Vito returned to the lineup for the first time in about a week, and went 0-2.

I'm not a very observant listener, which issues does he not believe in?

The big one to me is defense.

Kudos to Rob C for correctly identifying Toad the Wet Sprocket's 'Fall Down'.

I actually only caught the reference the second time I read it. The first time I read it I was wondering what the hell the post was about.

I mentioned this yesterday in a thread that got buried, but perhaps Moises Alou would be a good DH option if the Jays could get him for 1 year in the $3 million range. They'd have to wait a little while for his price to drop, but I'm not sure that a lot of teams are looking for an old OF at this point.

A saberemetric team? God, what the hell does that mean?

No sacrificing and few stolen bases.

That's sabermetric? No, it's traditional. Its just a different tradition, the Earl Weaver tradition. That's how the Red Sox and the Yankees have always played. No one talks about them as a sabermetric team... well, the Red Sox lately because of Theo Epstein and Bill James, but it looks like the real impact of "New" or "Modern" thinking has been on their attitude to defense...

I really don't see the Jays as a sabermetric or "Moneyball" team.

Neither do I - I don't see them as anything in particular. Not yet, anyway. I couldn't say with any degree of certainty what kind of players Ricciardi likes. Dirtbags? And "Moneyball" isn't about a type of player, it's about exploiting the differences between market value and genuine value. The nature of those differences is always in motion, and I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that the Blue Jays are exploiting that anyway.

Not that you would see it if they were - if you tell the world what you're doing, you lose whatever edge you've found.

The ultimate sabermetric concept is winning!

Depending on your viewpoint that may or may not be a good idea. We already know that Tyler thinks it's about as good an idea as sticking your head in the oven and turning it to 450. :)

Man, I know I'm spending too much time on here when I become identified as the voice of a certain viewpoint. Just to make it clear, I don't have any particular problem with Delgado, and consider myself to be a fan of his. I'll cheer for him next season, I just hope it's in a different uniform than that of the Blue Jays.

I've spent a lot of years rooting for the Oilers, and get the impression sometimes that some of you are too familiar with cheering for teams with unlimited budgets-we'll call them the Maple Leafs. I'm no economist, but it seems to me that in a completely perfect market (if "perfect" is the economic term I'm looking for), the Oilers would have zero chance of ever competing with the Maple Leafs. The Oilers players would jump to higher offers from the Maple Leafs as soon as the chance arose.

Sports isn't a perfect market in many ways, although free agency is maybe an example of as close as it gets to a perfect market (winner's curse aside). Decisions are made with imperfect information, contracts mean that people aren't always free to jump to a higher offer, and collective agreements mean that players are bound to a single team for the first six years of their major league career.

Let's say that the Blue Jays and Delgado came to a fair agreement, with the Jays getting the production that they paid for. It can't work, competing in divisions with teams like New York and Boston, who have budgets that are massively greater, unless they are making a series of mistakes that draw down the value of their spending. I'm willing to believe that the Yankees might be creeping up on that point-they could have a lot of dead money next year, to use an NFL term, but Boston, by my reading, isn't anywhere near that point, and is probably getting more value from their roster than they're paying for-David Ortiz being a wonderful example.

The moral of this diatribe is that for the Blue Jays to be competitive, they're going to have to be a younger team, and one that isn't paying "fair" market value for players. In that contest, they are most likely going to lose every time. Rather, they need to be smarter. Signing Delgado to a "fair" contract makes sense only if they've decided not to try and compete, but rather to lose in a fan friendly way. Not signing Delgado, and putting that money to work in a place where it can be used to make investments that have a higher rate of return than 1:1 is the way to go if the team is committed to winning.

/end economics type lecture

Moffat, you're an economics type. Is there something that I'm missing?

I thought JP loved Hinske because of his OBP. Rumour has it he had never even seen Hinske play when he acquired him (don't know for certain that this is true).

I think it's fair to say that the Jays use performance analysis as much as any other club, and much more so that many teams out there. If the tenets of a "Moneyball" team are:

1. Emphasize control of the strike zone
2. See hitters with patience and power
3. Tend to draft collegians
4. Avoid playing for 1 run

then the Jays certainly qualify. I appreciate that the media love to ignore JP's scouting background and to paint the issue as black-and-white, but to me there's no question his approach by and large fits this mould.

Tyler, you are absolutely right. My point is that internally we do not have a cleanup hitter in our organization who can provide a better than 1:1 return rate. As well, first base seems to be an organizational weakness where the cleanup need would be best filled. Therefore, we have to look outside the organization to fill that need. The Yankees can afford to look outside the organization 25 times for their 25 roster spots if they want to. The Jays can afford to do that maybe 5 times at most. I think a cleanup hitting first baseman should be one of those few times after examining our organzation top to bottom.

Now, Delgado may not be the best external option. However, remember that free agents like Sexson and Glaus likely will cost a draft pick. Trades cost players. Delgado costs none of that and likely adds significantly in the PR department. I think Delgado could very easily be the best external option, so long as he is signed to a reasonable contract.

Geoff, I don't know that I agree that there aren't options providing a better than 1:1 return rate. It's tough to really do analysis on this, as I don't really have the time to pour into it, but let me say this.

The Jays are not going to get Delgado to sign a one year deal, which would provide them with maximum flexibility. If the Jays give him 10 a year for 3 years or something, that's essentially 20% of the payroll where you're conceding that you aren't going to get the 2X or 3X production/$ that you need to compete in the AL East. That's a lot considering that they're paying the going rate for a guy like Halladay, same for Wells, and far above for Hinske. It means you have leverage much more out of the dollars you have left, and at some point, it's no longer possible. The publicity benefits of having Delgado around are dwarfed by the fact that you've essentially conceded for the next X years, as you likely aren't going to be able to get enough other production. Winning will draw them in, and it's probably more likely the team will win sans Delgado.

A few points of contention

A) I'm sure the Jays believe they will get more than 13 million dollars worth of production out of V-Dub over the next 3 years

B) I understand that you dont have the time to pour into an analysis on this, but your lack of specifics really makes your argument a whole lot easier to make. Its much easier to say "there must be a better option than Delgado at 3/30" than "So and so is a better option than Delgado at 3/3)" - chances are if you made the 2nd argument I might find myself agreeing with you. As it stands, internally I see no clear cleanup hitters in our organization from Pulaski to Toronto. Externally, I dont see any hitter on the FA market that will provide better production on the dollar than Delgado from 2005-07. Trades are just really tought to specualte on.

C) Phisophically speaking, I think your logic is flawed. There are a few spots where we need to spend to accentuate our core and put us over the top. The core is where we need to be cheaper and smarter than the rest - but just as Edmonton can add a Nedved or Niiniimaa, the Jays can keep a Delgado

I thought JP loved Hinske because of his OBP. Rumour has it he had never even seen Hinske play when he acquired him (don't know for certain that this is true).

It's true, but only true when Hinske was acquired by the A's from the Cubs.

Craig, being as I'm not a very observant listener, which issues does he not believe in?

He doesn't believe that strikeouts don't matter.

He doesn't believe in statistical measures of defense.

He doesn't believe that starting pitching is far more important than relief pitching.

He doesn't believe that performance is more important than tools.

He's a scout at heart. He talks like a scout, he seems to see things the way a scout does. That's not bad; many of the great GMs in the game have been scouts at heart. But it's not really "sabermetric" as most people think of it.

The ultimate sabermetric concept is winning!

The obvious rejoinder to that is that it's not too evident that he believes in that either. :) (OK, low blow)

He doesn't believe that starting pitching is far more important than relief pitching.

What makes this sabermetric dogma?

(Craig, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just curious about these issues, hence the questions)

Do you think he values performance equally to tools?

A little off topic, but I found this prediction over at SportingNews.com and was amuse by it:

The Record's Pete Caldera reports that the Yankees could try to acquire Carl Pavano, Matt Clement, Eric Milton, Matt Morris, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, David Wells or Al Leiter in the offseason.

Really? Wow, he shouldn't have been so specific [/sarcasm]

amuse should be past tense- oops