Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - When He's On, He's On

Josh Towers, meet eight near-shutout innings.

Innings, meet Josh Towers. I like this arrangement.

It took the pitiful Royals until the sixth inning to get a man past first base, and after that, they hardly mounted a threat against the suddenly...well, good Josh Towers.

Notice how the biggest dip in Game Score hardly brought him into the danger zone.

In his last two starts, Towers has thrown 16 innings and allowed exactly one run to score. One! He has struck out only seven over that period, but his strikeout rate is still remarkably high compared to last year.

K per IP
2004: 3.9
2005: 6.1

6.1 strikeouts every nine innings isn't Brad Lidge, but it's not Brad Radke either.

Also, his Average Game Score this year is at 56, well above what anyone should expect from a fifth starter. In fact, last year in the American League, only two pitchers exceeded 56 -- Johan Santana and Curt Schilling. When you're third in anything to Santana and Schilling, you're in mighty fine shape.

Towers is now pumping strike after strike in the zone, and they aren't as hittable as 2004 Towers was. On his first time through the order against Kansas City, he went 0-2 on five batters. You can say, "Oh sure, but those were the Royals -- they suck!" True, but this is the same pitcher who shut down Baltimore's offense a week ago today.

Finally, and for what it's worth, in his seven starts this season, Joshua Eric Towers has outpitched the other starting pitcher six times. If not for the Texas Rangers, Towers would be a perfect 7-for-7.

What do Bauxites think of the reason for Towers' success as of late? Is he pitching "for the other 29 teams" again? Has he found something new in his delivery? Or is he a little nervous about the pitching wealth in the minors and wants to show he belongs with the big boys?

There was a good point made in the chat last night -- without Josh Towers, the Blue Jays would have sent Mike Smith to the mound every week for the last three years. And I don't want to think about that. (Smith, by the way, is currently pitching in Double-A after two straight subpar seasons in Syracuse.)

Another point of discussion is the much-maligned Matt Whiteside. Complaining about his presence, while fun, and predicting his collapse, while inevitable, is completely useless. Instead, answer this: Who should the Blue Jays call up in his place? Chad Mottola? John-Ford Griffin? Eric Crozier? Anton French? Jason Arnold -- er, never mind. Even if Whiteside has to stay, he still isn't going to pitch until June anyway.

One last statistic I found rather strange.
Combined AAA and MLB home runs since Opening Day 2004:
Player A: 12
Player B: 4

I think you know who these players are.

So, there you have it. Feel free to talk about anything baseball-related here, as long as you don't float the possibility of another catcher going down. We don't need to speculate on that. Do you really want Ernie Whitt catching tomorrow?

In fact, forget I asked that question.

Posted by Rob on Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 08:19 AM EDT.

When He's On, He's On | 30 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

NDG - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:14 AM EDT (#116223) #

Here's an excellent article by Steve Treder at the Hardball Times discussing the usage patterns of the modern bullpen.

I'm completely in agreement with him that the use of multitudes of untalented relievers is what has led to the current offensive era.

Pistol - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:31 AM EDT (#116224) #

When I think of Josh Towers I can't get the thought of 'nothing more than a 5th starter', but he's gone and thrown this up in the stat sheet this year:

NAME	        K/9	BB/9	HR/9	WHIP	ERA
Josh Towers	6.2	0.6	1.0	1.04	3.12

He's striking out more players now which is good, but is that sustainable? I'm not convinved of it yet, although maybe I should.

BallGuy - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 09:59 AM EDT (#116226) #

I think we should start taking Towers more seriously. In watching the post-game interview iwth him on Sportsnet, he came off as a very serious young man and he provided good analysis of his game. In commenting on Jamie Campbell's comment that he pitched well, Towers said that he actually had some things that did not work well at all last night and that he needs to correct. I think Josh Towers is really starting to develop the consistency that has eluded him in the past. I know he has reminded me of Todd Stottlemyer in that he shows flashes of brilliance but then completely falls apart. But the big difference is that I see the same million dollar arm but not the same 10 cent head.

Coach - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 10:24 AM EDT (#116230) #

From our vantage point (field level, just slightly above and to the left of the plate) it appeared that Towers could put almost every pitch just about where he wanted it. Huckaby called a great game; much of his reputation as a "plus" defender stems from his handling of pitchers, and as I've pointed out before, he has the lowest seat of any catcher, which can only help steal a strike or two when his pitcher hits the target. Huck may not have a cannon arm, and he was prone to passed balls the last time he saw regular action here, but he does help his staff back there.

His 2 RBI were an unexpected bonus. Actually, if I'd been managing the Royals, I would have pitched around Adams in the sixth to load the bases for Huck. This isn't a post-triple, 20-20 hindsight observation; as Leigh will attest, I called it the potential turning point and questioned Pena and his scouting reports as soon as they threw Russ a strike. That decision led to three runs: the two Adams drove in, and the one he scored on what would have been a subsequent inning-ending Huckaby GIDP had anyone been on first. However, the Royals would still have had to score two more runs to win even if they had played it "my" way, and Josh wasn't gonna let that happen.

It was my long-overdue first game of the year, and the RC looks fantastic. The early negative impression some people had of the outfield screens as distracting and potentially dangerous seems to have faded already, and the out-of-town info is welcome between innings and during pitching changes. The big CF screen is absolutely awesome, the ribbon boards are colourful and of course, the biggest improvement is the turf. The entire game experience has never been better -- all the place needs now is 50,000 loud voices every night, cheering a playoff team. That may only be a year or two away, as the Jays continue to head in the right direction.

Dave Till - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 10:45 AM EDT (#116234) #

I think that some, if not all, of Towers' improvement is for real. He's genuinely throwing harder now, and I've seen him actually blow the ball by the occasional hitter with a high fastball (as Pat Hentgen used to do). I don't recall his doing that when he first came to Toronto.

From what I've read, I would guess that Towers has worked very hard at improving both his velocity and his command, with obvious results. At this point, I'd rank him #3 on the depth chart, behind Doc and Chacin.

I'm wondering: how often do pitchers improve like this in mid-career without developing new pitches? Usually, when a pitcher's strikeout totals go up, or his performance improves, it usually means that he's found a new pitch and is throwing it for strikes. But (and correct me if I'm wrong) Towers isn't throwing any new pitches - he's just throwing his existing pitches better.

alsiem - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:01 AM EDT (#116235) #

I think one thing to watch out for is fatigue for Towers. He has often faded badly by the end of the season. If he is expending more energy to increase his velocity, then this problem may be magnified. I think the good news is his command is better than usual which should help him keep his pitch counts down.

Mike Green - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:10 AM EDT (#116236) #

Adding 2-3 mph onto the fastball at age 28 isn't astounding. I'd give some credit to Arnsberg for Towers' improvement; I am supposing that mechanical adjustments were made to his delivery, most likely in the hips and legs. I wish that I was expert enough to see them.

Putting the starters in order after Doc is tough, and ultimately unimportant unless we're talking about the playoffs. Now there's a pleasant thought.

Adams' triple over the centerfielder's head last night was the final confirmation I needed. He got stronger in the legs after 2003, and is no longer a singles hitter. I am confident that he has a good career ahead of him.

uglyone - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:38 AM EDT (#116238) #

I did my own statpack on Josh last night after the game on another forum, and came up with these ranks for Josh so far:

Wins: 4 (T-5th AL)

K/BB: 10.0 (4th AL)

P/IP: 14.1 (8th AL)

WHIP: 1.04 (5th AL)

ERA: 3.12 (T-9th AL)

ERC: 2.99 (13th AL)

DIPS: 3.71 (12th AL)

Opp.OPS: .650 (14th AL)

uglyone - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 11:44 AM EDT (#116239) #

Along with his slightly harder fastball, does anyone else think his slider also looks much sharper?

I also don't see him using his curveball much....or maybe it's just not curving so much.

Scott Levy - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:09 PM EDT (#116240) #

Josh Towers could turn out to be a Jon Lieber type of pitcher if his improved K rates are for real (still skeptical). Lieber didn't really start striking guys out until age 27. Than as he hit his 30's, his K's started falling (might have been due to injury), but his command was so good that it didn't matter. I'm still not sold on Towers, but I'm keeping an open mind.

Scott Levy - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:20 PM EDT (#116241) #

36 GS, 19-11, 4.31 ERA, 211 IP, 242 H, 34 BB, 129 K, 29 HR, 5.50 K/9, 1.45 BB/9, 3.79 K/BB

Not bad for a #5 starter.

(those are Josh's numbers as a starter from '03-'05)

Craig B - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:38 PM EDT (#116245) #

I've said all along I have reservations about Arnsberg, connected to injuries in pitchers he's been responsible for. But I have to say, his work so far has been overall very, very good. I hope to be munching on crow on this score by next season.

MatO - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 12:48 PM EDT (#116246) #

Watched the game on TV last night and Towers was throwing in the high 80's most of the time. He seemed to be throwing something that looked like a cutter too. Did he have one before?

This team will continue to scuffle as long as the part-time SS has more HR's than the corner OF's combined and trails the CF and 1B by only one.

uglyone - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:01 PM EDT (#116250) #

I guess I have a problem with using the word "scuffle" to describe a 17-16 team with the 6th best record in the american league...against the toughest schedule in the league so far.

Home Runs, or the lack thereof, will definitely be the bane of this team this year....they're on pace for somewhere in the 120s for the year, and that's not likely to improve too much.

But, the team has shown the ability to hit a good amount of doubles and triples (on pace for 330 something), definitely above average, and the .275avg/.340obp is probably something we can expect to continue as well, and is also above average.

No doubt this team needs an impact bat or two, but there;s a pretty decent chance that all 9 hitters (even 10 including Reed) will be able to post near league average numbers (.750+ ops), with 2-3 of them being significantly better than that, which will make for a decent all around lineup.

So far, even considering that some players will continue to have fewer at bats, we have 10 hitters all on pace for in between 50-100 runs and 50-100 rbi, which shows a very nice balance through the lineup.

Wildrose - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:13 PM EDT (#116252) #

The boys at Baseball Analysts discuss Towers in their May 08/05 story. They compare compare him to these two fellows.

CaramonLS - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#116254) #

Is Towers Arb eligable or is he going to be a Free agent at the end of this season?

Looks like we could get 2 trade-deadline returns on players if they keep up their hot starts: Hillenbrand and Towers.

And for Towers increased strikeout ratio: Theres definately some more movement there, you could see batters Frozen at the plate by his fastball last night.

Jordan - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#116256) #

Getting back to the Treder article that NDG referenced at the start --- it's actually the culmination of several articles on the evolution of bullpen construction and use, and it's one of the better contributions to strategic baseball analysis I've seen in a while. This is sabrmetrics at its best: not just number-crunching, but conventional-wisdom-questioning.

Near the end of his final piece, Treder talks about the recent trend among three sabrmetrically-inclined teams (the Red Sox, Athletics and Dodgers) to give their closers more work in high-leverage multi-inning situations, not just trotting them out automatically to start the ninth. What about the Blue Jays? Miguel Batista's installation as the closer this spring was not universally hailed at the time, but one of its indisputable merits was that, as a former starter with a resilient arm, he need not be restricted to single-inning use.

And indeed, in his first three appearances of the year, Batista entered games twice in the 8th inning. The second of those appearances, however, resulted in his only blown save so far this season, when he retired the Red Sox in the 8th but allowed them to score twice in the ninth. Whether coincidentally or not, all of Batista's subsequent appearances have been for only one inning (9 times) or less than one inning (3 times).

Now, in fairness, although Batista has pitched just 2/3 of an inning in his last two outings, he entered the game with the score close and his team trailing both times. That is already an innovative approach to the closer's role: use him when the need is greatest, not just in �save situations.� And in Batista's other short appearance (1/3 of an inning), he was brought in to finish off a blowout that was getting away from the mop-up men. And rarely if ever have the Jays allowed Schoeneweis to determine a close game when Batista was available. So I'm certainly not saying that the Jays have been dinosaurs in their closer usage.

But Treder�s argument is that your best relievers should be taking your highest-leverage, most critical innings, and that teams should have the courage to break out of the contemporary one-inning closer usage pattern. One month into the season, the Blue Jays have not fully taken up that challenge with Miguel Batista. He is averaging 1.04 IP per appearance, trailing Pete Walker (2.04), Vinnie Chulk (1.30) and Jason Frasor (1.13). Even Brandon League was averaging 1.86 IP/G before his demotion. Walker and League were essentially long relievers and in most cases didn�t pitch high-leverage innings. But the same can�t be said for setup men Frasor and Chulk, who have pitched longer per outing than the team�s purported ace reliever.

There are possible explanations for this, of course, aside from the obvious possibility that it�s early in the season, sample sizes are small, and roles are still getting worked out. But it�s possible that the Jays (either John Gibbons or his bosses) really aren't ready to rock the boat of bullpen construction and use. It�s also possible that Batista himself does not want to work more than one inning at a time (I think this is fairly unlikely). It�s also possible that the Jays don't actually think Batista is the best pitcher in their bullpen, and they want to minimize his high-pressure multi-inning appearances � basically, he�s in the closer's role to rack up easy saves and present an attractive trade target come July.

Now, none of those possibilities really seems plausible to me, and at this point, I'm quite willing to wait and see if more multiple-inning high-leverage opportunities open up for Batista over the next few weeks. But if the Jays approach the All-Star Break with their closer still averaging 1 inning per appearance, and their setup men pitching more innings per appearance than their closer, I will be disappointed that the Jays apparently haven't taken advantage of a growing innovation within the game and a pitcher who seems perfectly suited to implement it.

uglyone - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:16 PM EDT (#116259) #

It’s also possible that the Jays don't actually think Batista is the best pitcher in their bullpen, and they want to minimize his high-pressure multi-inning appearances — basically, he’s in the closer's role to rack up easy saves and present an attractive trade target come July.

Perhaps the issue here is that the Jays are trying to DEVELOP him into a lights out reliever, instead of just assuming he is right off the bat. This means getting him in a comfortable and consistent role before using him in any and all high leverage situations. This also means getting the rest of the bullpen and team comfortable with him in that role. In fact, with two more somewhat unknowns in Frasor and Chulk, (even Schoeneweis) the jays obviously have to spend some time learning their bullpen, and learning who is the best in which situations. The more Batista proves himself in a more limited role, the more the Jays can then start to push him into a more expansive role. The Jays obviously had the belief that Miggy could be a decent closer, but he's still being introduced to the role.

Joe - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#116260) #

That the Jays might not think of Batista as their ace closer intrigues me. Frasor as the 'true' ace jumps to mind; in my totally unstatistical (read 'incorrect') memory of games this season, it seems that recently, Frasor's been pitching in a lot of high-leverage situations, while Batista comes in a lot for the ninth.

Of course, statistics doesn't always back that up. Of late, Frasor has been pretty good, but Batista has been even better: he's given up exactly 1 hit in 4.1 IP in May. Walker has also been very good, but his use has almost exclusively been longer relief than Frasor or Batista.

I don't really think the Jays are showcasing Batista for a trade, but I've been wrong before. It seems more like the Jays have a wealth of talent in their bullpen, and are finding ways to use it effectively, regardless of whether that flies in the face of accepted wisdom or not.

NDG - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:19 PM EDT (#116261) #

Miguel Batista's installation as the closer this spring was not universally hailed at the time, but one of its indisputable merits was that, as a former starter with a resilient arm, he need not be restricted to single-inning use.

Part of the problem may be Batista's expectations as a closer. I remember when Escobar was turned into a closer (the second time I think), there's was lots of talk of him doing the same thing (multiple inning saves). The first time he blew a two-inning save, he rebelled. This was when he made the quote along the lines of "Nobody asks Hoffman to pitch two innings. Nobody asks Nen to pitch two innings". I don't think Escobar was ever really asked to go two innings after that.

Pitchers aren't stupid. They know they can make a lot more money pitching one inning with a three run lead than they can pitching two with a one run lead. Now there's no evidence that Batista has made this an issue. But it would just be human nature that he'd want to do the same that others are (and for the same rewards).

alsiem - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#116264) #

Interesting arguement here. Is it better to get the counting stats up here for a trade (Batista has 25 saves!) or is it better to use him anyway you think will help win games? Obviously it depends on what you want to do with Batista in the future. I think Batista at 4 million is deal as a starter with the recent contracts so I'm not sure marketing him as an ace closer will make him that more valuable.

Rob - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 02:52 PM EDT (#116265) #

I did not notice this when writing the title of this Game Report, but check out this quote from today's Fordin story:

"We've seen enough of him. When he's on, he's on," Gibbons said of Towers.

In case you didn't know, Gibby and I operate on the same brain wave.

R Billie - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#116268) #

He's been on more often this year with only one stumble in 7 starts. His slider/curve/slurve appears to be better as well. More bite moving down and in. He relies a lot less on his straight four seam fastball and throws more in the high 80s with some movement. Combine this movement improvement with the impeccable command he's shown and it's led to good results. Maybe he can be a righthanded Jamie Moyer.

Shaun Marcum just numbers wise appears to be a clone of what Towers is doing at the major league level. Banks' numbers are similar too but his stuff is actually better.

If the Jays were able to get themselves a true 1A starter to compliment Roy they'd be in great shape with the depth they currently have and the depth they seem to have coming.

Jacko - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:33 PM EDT (#116270) #

Sorry to pick nits, but Batista's salary for 05 and 06 is 4.75MM.

Also, who steps in to close if he's dealt? Frasor? Chulk? Arnold? Miller?

Even though "Strikey" can sometimes lose his control, I'm actually feeling pretty comfortable when he comes in to close games now. If it ain't broke...

Magpie - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#116273) #

Towers remains a fascinating pitcher, because there's no one else quite like him. Maddux and Quantrill are both right-handed pitchers with wonderful control and unimpressive fastballs. But they're both groundball machines. And so was Bob Tewksbury, who also gets mentioned from time to time when Towers' comes up. Towers is now getting slightly more groundballs than flyballs (the reverse was true when he broke in with the Orioles) - but he is nowhere near as extreme a groundball pitcher as these other guys.

Jamie Moyer is an intriguing suggestion, because Moyer, like Towers, works up in the strike zone (Moyer gets more flyballs than Towers, and Josh doesn't walk as many people as Moyer.) Like Maddux, Moyer lives by changing speeds - Towers doesn't have that part of his game quite together yet. But, geez... if Towers ever develops a really good changeup, the Jays are going to have something really special.

Magpie - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:03 PM EDT (#116277) #

Is Towers Arb eligable or is he going to be a Free agent at the end of this season?

Coming into this season, Towers had 2 years and 57 days ML service time. So he'll be abitration eligible. He won't have FA rights until after the 2008 season.

Coach - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:25 PM EDT (#116279) #

if Towers ever develops a really good changeup, the Jays are going to have something really special.

I never get tired of agreeing with you, Magpie. Had that exact discussion during the game last night and on the phone today. If Josh could throw a deceptive change for a called strike to get ahead or as a swinging out pitch, it would also make his heater seem that much faster and turn the odd HR into a foul ball. Everybody tries to develop one, but some guys never master the touch.

I hope to be munching on crow...

Craig, as I said with my usual optimism when Arnsberg was hired, thank goodness he didn't come in a package with Torborg. Together, as you and many other respected observers have pointed out, they were hard on arms. Arnie continues to be very popular with his charges, while Gibbons has done a nice job protecting his pitchers, erring on the side of caution with everyone but Doc, whose stamina is exceptional.

Leigh - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 04:51 PM EDT (#116280) #

This isn't a post-triple, 20-20 hindsight observation; as Leigh will attest, I called it the potential turning point and questioned Pena and his scouting reports as soon as they threw Russ a strike.

The man is telling the truth. Coach and I were the Statler and Waldorf to Pena's Muppet Show.

Doug C - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#116282) #

This supports my view of the bullpen this year. Pitchers have been slotted into roles based upon their likely compatability with that role, not by overall talent or ranking. So I'm not sure that the type of analysis we're talking about here would apply to the Jays. Maybe once Batista, Frasor, Chulk, etc have more of a track record with their current (or ultimate) roles, then we could better project what could happen by altering those usage patterns.

Magpie - Tuesday, May 10 2005 @ 05:43 PM EDT (#116284) #

I never get tired of agreeing with you, Magpie.

Thanks, Coach. I needed that.

I was thinking of doing a piece on all the not-so-prescient things I've written. Like the White Sox will finish just below .500... that the D'Backs fans will be wearing paper bags and asking for tryouts... that Julio Franco is a better hitter than Shea Hillenbrand...

Makes a fella want to stick to writing about 1912.

Of course, the D'Backs have lost 3 in a row... Hillenbrand is 3 for his last 22... even the White Sox lost last night... maybe the universe is beginning to unfold as I foretold it...

When He's On, He's On | 30 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.