Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Yankees 7, Blue Jays 0: At Least it Wasn't 12-1

Yankees 7, Blue Jays 0: At Least it Wasn't 12-1

What to discuss, what to discuss... Well, you cannot, by definition, have a positive discussion about the offense when the team does not score a run (and nobody has more than one hit), so that leaves the pitchers.

I have nothing against Pete Walker -- sources indicate he's great at ogling the Queen with Jeff Tam in unaired 2003 commercials -- but his ERA wasn't going to stay at 2.66 all year. (Nor will it stay at 3.12.) This wasn't a surprise. Scott "Schotime" Schoeneweis has a fun last name, but he faced just two batters. Vinnie Chulk didn't have three inherited runners to strand, so he was fairly unmemorable.

You have to love any Blue Jays game where the best part of it all was the losing pitcher. And he is the focus of today's Game Report. Sort of...

You see, this was supposed to be a look at every pitch Scott Downs threw today. It is not.

I only wish I didn't start watching my tape of the game at 1:20 am; maybe I would have discovered this earlier. I didn't even notice during the game that Sportsnet was not showing pitch speeds. So I tried, I really did, but, alas, I cannot accurately tell anyone's pitches apart without a MPH number. Unless they throw two pitches, and appropriately deem them "fast" and "slow" in the scouting report. They didn't, and I wasn't about to wing it. (Wait until next week -- perhaps there will be radar readings during next Sunday's game. Then again, it's on TSN, so...no.)

Anyway, I'll try and go off my scoresheet and see what I can find. Downs threw exactly 100 pitches, 59 of which were strikes. I believe that makes 59%. He faced 27 batters, so we can look at each time through the lineup easily.

ALL PITCHES
Batter	        B	C	S	F	X	TOTAL
Womack	        3	2	1	2	3	11
Williams	6	1	0	1	2	10
Sheffield	5	1	0	1	3	10
Rodriguez	7	2	0	2	3	14
Matsui	        5 	4	0	1	3	13
Posada	        4	4	1	0	3	12
Giambi	        8	4	2	0	1	15
Escalona	2	1	1	1	2	7
Cano	        1	2	2	0	2	7
TOTAL           41	21	7	8	22	99

Don't you just love those 8-9 hitters?

A few things are evident here. First, 99 does not equal 100. I didn't count the HBP vs. Cano, which I guess would be a ball. Also, Scott Downs was probably lucky that he didn't get torched by the middle of the lineup anymore than he already did. Nobody from Williams through Matsui swung and missed against Downs. 12 plate appearances, 47 pitches...and no swinging strikes. That strikes (pardon the pun) me as amazing. To compare, Catalanotto through Koskie swung at three pitches. Okay, so two of those were Wells in the first inning. I'm still mad over that AB. Anyway...

Here's another observation: perhaps you can tell how dangerous the pitcher thinks the batter is by counting the number of balls thrown to the hitter.

Batter        Balls
Giambi   	8
Rodriguez	7
Williams	6
Matsui	        5
Sheffield	5
Posada	        4
Womack 	        3
Escalona	2
Cano	        1

I'd say that's about right, from top to bottom. Sheffield seems low, but add a ball and he's right behind A-Rod and Giambi. Once again, for comparison, Jaret Wright:

Batter        Balls
Koskie	        7
Catalanotto	6
Hinske	        5
Hudson	        5
Adams	        4
Rios	        4
Hillenbrand	2
Zaun	        1
Wells	        0

Yeah, Vernon didn't see a ball at all against Wright. This is a bit different here -- the lefties and switch hitters averaged 4.7 balls per 3 PA and the righties less than half as many, only 2.3 per 3 PA -- mainly because lefthanded hitters have roasted Wright in his non-Mazzone years, and even in 2004, the split was pronounced.

Spot the outlier: 15-11-6-7-15-11-10-12-12. Yep, that "6-7" belongs to Wells and Hillenbrand, who saw just 13 pitches in 6 PAs combined. Fewer than Cano and Escalona (14)!

To the 27 batters, Downs' first pitches were as follows:

Balls              11
Called strikes     10
Balls in play       3
Swinging strikes    2
Foul balls          1

Since I can't tell you if they are fastballs or whatever, this table is pretty useless. It looks good, though.

Other Scoresheet Notes:

Jason Giambi didn't swing at the first pitch all night. Or the second. He only saw one strike in those pitches, how could you blame him? He swung at 3 of 4 third pitches, though -- two of which were followed by more taking. When Giambi didn't swing, he saw 5 strikes against 10 balls. And he reached base three times.

Orlando Hudson's strikeouts were nearly identical, and dare I say there is a pattern here, where T indicates took the pitch and S indicates swung: TTSTT and TTSTTS. It's just two AB, but if there was a fast way to view every pitch from all of Hudson's strikeouts, I'd look for that "TTST" to start each one.

Russ Adams had the best approach of any Blue Jay: he took a lot of balls, didn't swing and miss at all and was never behind in the count. His performance on the night? Walk-flyout-single-double. Not surprisingly, Vernon Wells was the opposite in his approach in nearly every single way listed above (a 1-0 count vs. Sturtze creates the need for the word "nearly"), and his results speak for themselves: 0-4 with a strikeout, two groundouts and a popup.

I still find it completely absurd to use Alan Embree against one batter in a 6-0 game. As a Blue Jay fan (and, by extension, general Yankee hater) I really hope Joe Torre keeps using Tanyon Sturtze in every other game, but as a fan of sane bullpen management, I hate it. Why not Proctor for two innings? It's not like Torre needs him in close games -- Buddy Groom was right.

Other Baseball Notes:

Team A, Close and Late: .252/.325/.388.
Team B, Close and Late: .265/.330/.387.
Too close to call, right?

Team A, RISP: .274/.349/.430
Team B, RISP: .269/.340/.447
Which line is better?

Team A, RISP/2 outs: .251/.344/.395
Team B, RISP/2 outs: .254/.349/.430
Pick the better offensive team here. If you'd rather take Team A, I'd like to play poker with you. Right now.

What's the point of all this? Well, Team A is the American League average for the situations indicated. Now go back and look at those lines again. Team B is better in every case -- and if not better, then laughably similar as to produce what they call "a wash."

The Toronto Blue Jays are at the very, very worst, slightly better than average at hitting in crucial situations. I don't ever want to hear anyone say that they "can't get the runner home from third" or "they have BRUTAL clutch hitting" ever again. It's simply not true. Fans of every team think their lineup sucks in this respect. I don't want to hear it anymore. You'd be surprised at how many tidbits of conventional wisdom, baseball or otherwise, are wrong, simply due to selective memory.

I enjoyed Magpie's Mystery Outfielders/Alex Rios comparison -- especially the first one -- so I started looking up the Most Similar players at Baseball-Reference.com for some of the Jays. Corey Koskie's injury has been the subject of many debates -- some want to excuse his poor hitting, others say the signing was a mistake, etc. -- and I can't disagree with the naysayers after seeing this. The 10 most similar players to Koskie through age 31 (his 2004 season) averaged only two more years after age 31 -- in Koskie terms, everything after and including this season. And those two years contained just 192 games, with a .263/.331/.431 batting line. Two players didn't play in the majors again, while two more had just one year left. In fact, looking at the same measures for Catalanotto, Koskie and Hillenbrand, the "predicted" OPS+, so to speak, for each one came out to 101, 102 or 103. In other words, average.

(In my best Carson impression) "I tell you, this offense is so average!"
"How average is it?"
"It's so average...(trademark Carson pause)... it has 2.3 children.

The last two points were all about this offense being average. Well, the average AL hitter has a line of .268/.331/.425. I know OPS offends Magpie's sense of logic, but that 756 mark looks mighty close to a couple of Blue Jays' season stats: Reed Johnson. Russ Adams. Frank Catalanotto. Eric Hinske. Aaron Hill. Gregg Zaun. Orlando Hudson. Alex Rios. Seven hitters near 756. To compare, Boston has two. Not every team can be Boston offensively, but still...seven?

And Magpie, the world is curious! You posted at 2:17 and 5:18 this morning. During which of the following periods did you sleep?
a) After the game and before 2:17
2) Between 2:17 and 5:18
c) Never

Finally, if you have read through the entire chat log from yesterday's game, you are possibly insane. The post-game discussion went for a good three hours after the game ended. Nothing better to do, I guess. Of course, I was there and I wrote all this, so what business do I have criticizing others' lives?

Posted by Rob on Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 09:19 AM EDT.

Yankees 7, Blue Jays 0: At Least it Wasn't 12-1 | 16 comments | Create New Account

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

Named For Hank - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 09:27 AM EDT (#126326) #

I don't ever want to hear anyone say that they "can't get the runner home from third" or "they have BRUTAL clutch hitting" ever again.

A regular perpetuator of this one is Jerry Howarth, who has been saying "they just can't get that runner home from third" pretty much non-stop since the All-Star break. As a primary voice of the Toronto Blue Jays, what Jerry says becomes the perception for a great many fans.

Rob, get on the horn to the FAN 590 and let 'em know!

Shortstop - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 10:18 AM EDT (#126329) #

If you look over the last couple of weeks, in their losses, they have stranded quite a number of runners at 2nd and 3rd. Stats do not play into account the score of the game, or the situtation. Last week, in their lose to the Angels, they had e runner on 3rd with 1 out and could not score them in the Top of the 9th.

I'm not saying they are brutal, or that they are the only team that does not score with less than 2 outs a runner from 3rd. I think that they need to do better in that situation over the last 3-4 weeks. Espically when you are in a pennant race and the score is close. these should be easy runs to score and they have failed to do so in some tight games.

i think this is one of those times where stats cannot tell the whole story. but i did find that interesting.

kpataky - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 10:25 AM EDT (#126330) #

I'm amazed that you could compilate all of this between the end of the game last night and this morning. You must have stayed up all night. And just for a regular old Monday night game (as compared to say a playoff or World Series game).

Jonny German - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 11:31 AM EDT (#126334) #

Stats do not play into account the score of the game, or the situtation.

So the stats above, explicity listed as "Close & Late" and "RISP, 2 outs" don't tell you anything about the score or the situation?

Blue in SK - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 11:32 AM EDT (#126335) #

I can't help but be impressed by Scott Downs performance since he was thrust into a starting role. Is there any merit to considering him for next year's rotation? I'd be willing to bet that his peripherals aren't that great, but he gets the job done. Kinda like a young Jamie Moyer.

Blue in SK - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 11:46 AM EDT (#126339) #

I withdraw the above comment, as apparently I have been possessed by the spirit of Richard Griffin -

"Downs, in his six starts since Roy Halladay's shin injury, has flashed enough toughness to show GM J.P. Ricciardi that he is better suited as a member of the rotation than in the bullpen. It could allow them to try and move Lilly in an off-season deal."

Mike Green - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 12:09 PM EDT (#126342) #

Downs' peripherals this season are actually pretty good. He's struck out enough, walked few enough and got ground balls at a higher rate than anyone on the team other than Halladay. He's given up a very high rate of HR/fly, despite allowing a low line drive rate. He's pitched better this year than in his previous major league tries. This doesn't mean that he cannot do it again.

I remain of the view that the rotation is a strong point, whether or not Lilly returns in 2006. Downs is a plausible option for a rotation spot, but there are several others.

Nigel - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#126343) #

Neither of the stats that you list actually help very much when you are talking about getting runners in from third with less than 2 outs, where outs may or may not accomplish the task. You need to break down each situation and determine if a hit, BB, SF or an out actually accomplished the goal of scoring the run. In the last month or so the Jays have been terrible at getting runners home from third with less than 2 outs; however, I don't actually think that this has been a season long problem like it was last year.

Rob - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#126347) #

If you look over the last couple of weeks, in their losses, they have stranded quite a number of runners at 2nd and 3rd.

Aha! A challenge! Well, let's see: In the last two weeks, the Jays are 7-6. Those six losses total 24 runners stranded on second or third in 51 total innings. 0.47 per inning. But take a look at the winning team in each case, and you have 23 runners stranded on second or third, in fewer than 51 innings. In fact, it's in 46.1 innings -- or 0.49 per inning.

In their last six losses, the Blue Jays stranded fewer runners per inning than the teams that went 6-0 against Toronto in those losses.

Neither of the stats that you list actually help very much when you are talking about getting runners in from third with less than 2 outs, where outs may or may not accomplish the task.

See, here's what I don't like about that statement. Why is leaving a runner on second with less than two outs almost never mentioned as a problem. Do people not care about stranding a leadoff double?

You need to break down each situation and determine if a hit, BB, SF or an out actually accomplished the goal of scoring the run.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how a hit (covered above in BA/OBP/SLG lines) would not score the runner from third with less than two outs. A walk can only score the run if the bases are loaded, and Toronto is still above average in runs with the bases loaded (91 RBI vs. 82) , so it doesn't matter.

So that leaves your last point, which is a valid one. The ultimate goal is to score, not get a hit. And while good hitting usually means good scoring, usually does not mean always.

So here's another comparison. You know who Team B is already, and this time, Team A is different:
Team A, RISP: 491 runs, 460 RBI, 35 sac flies.
Team B, RISP: 488 runs, 460 RBI, 45 sac flies.

The goal is to score, right? Would you say Team B is any worse at it than Team A? They look about the same to me. Well, you'd like to know who Team A is, right?

Team A is the New York Yankees. You know, the team that has all those Big Scary Bats. I can't find stats for "runner on third, less than two outs" but come on -- they are, at the very least, scoring just as many runs as the Yankees with runners on second and third and they are moving runners to third (or home, which means a run) at a better rate. Those 488 runs are third in the AL. 460 RBIs are tied for second. The sac flies? Second place.

I'll say it again: The Toronto Blue Jays are better than average at getting base hits, sac flies and scoring runs in crucial situations. If the offense isn't "clutch" then how do they score just as much as the Yankees do with runners in scoring position when they are actually 54 runs behind them overall?

Nigel - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#126354) #

Rob- a hit will score a runner from third the vast majority of the time, but actually there are a few infield singles and line drives to the outfield where the runner isn't sure if the ball will be caught that do not score runners from third.

I did this analysis last year and came up with similar results. If you look at the Jays during the month of August (which, as I said, I believe is the time frame over which the team has struggled in this capacity) and looked at the game logs for each game. I looked at situations in which a Jay batter came to the plate with a man on third and less than two outs and determined if that batter scored the runner from third (whether by hit, walk, hit by pitch, sac fly, ground out, double play - you name) the only situations I ignored were situations in which the run scored by wild pitch or a walk/hit by pitch with a base open. If a man was on third with none out then it is possible that more than one batter faced this situation per runner on third. During this period Jay batters faced this situation 33 times and brought the runner on third in 16 times or 48.5%. Opposition hitters faced this situation 45 times and brought the runner in 29 times or 64.4%.

I did the same analysis for the first 100 games or so of last season and the numbers were remarkably similar. Jays hitters were 101/194 or 52% successful and the opposition was 131/203 or 64.5% successful.

I stand by what I said, the Jays have been poor the last month at driving in runners from third with less than two outs.

As you say, there are other components of run scoring and their are other components of clutch (whatever that means) hitting - like getting runners home with two outs. I don't dispute that for one minute. This just happens to be a weird problem (that I have no real explanation for) for this team lately (and certainly was a problem all of last year).

Rob - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 02:40 PM EDT (#126356) #

This just happens to be a weird problem (that I have no real explanation for) for this team lately (and certainly was a problem all of last year).

I guess I just don't see the significance of being 30 runs behind in one situation over ~100 games when the team was outscored by its opponents by more than three times that number over 162 games.

Nigel - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#126358) #

Rob - in the larger sense, I agree with you - there are larger components of run scoring that impact overall offensive production or prevention that are more significant. However, there have been two games in the last week and a half (the 9-8 loss to Detroit and the 5-4 loss to Anaheim) in which 9th inning failures to get even a sacrifice fly probably resulted in a loss. What interests me in this is whether this ability to score runs in these situations is a skill or not. The obvious answer last year was that the Jays were a poor offensive team overall and that this was merely a by-product. However, the Jays are not a poor offensive team this year. Maybe this is just a small sample size problem exacerbated by a few noticeable situations in which the team failed to get score the run. I don't know.

I track this because a number of these runs are scored with outs - part of the old school lore (and much scoffed at) of the productive out. If its a skill - then maybe there's something to the old baseball theory.

James W - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 03:21 PM EDT (#126359) #

Somebody must be keeping these stats, because watching the PHI-SF game last night, a graphic came up after a Noah Lowry sac fly that said he's scored a runner from third with less than two outs 4 out of 6 times. This, it seems, is precisely the stat we're looking for here.

It's this situation, runner on third with less than 2 outs, where most of us expect them to score the runner. When this runner doesn't score, the hitter has failed in our minds, and it's something we don't forget.

Ducey - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 03:38 PM EDT (#126360) #

"Downs, in his six starts since Roy Halladay's shin injury, has flashed enough toughness to show GM J.P. Ricciardi that he is better suited as a member of the rotation than in the bullpen. It could allow them to try and move Lilly in an off-season deal."

Huh? Trade Lilly based on 6 starts of Downs? He does have a MLB career ERA in 31 starts of over 5 and a WHIP of 1.65. I think JP is to be congratulated for getting Downs for nothing but as this year again shows - you can never have enough pitching. I would be much happier with Downs in the pen next year with Lilly as a starter.

Jordan - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 04:11 PM EDT (#126362) #

I can think of a number of good reasons to trade Ted Lilly, but Scott Downs' capacity to replace him in the rotation isn't one of them. Downs has given the Jays exactly what they could have hoped for -- competent middle relief and a series of decent-to-very-good spot starts. But that's the ceiling of what he can deliver, and sending him out there every fifth day would be asking too much. Cf. Pete Walker in that regard.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 08:30 PM EDT (#126369) #

Kinda like a young Jamie Moyer.

Jamie Moyer was never "a young Jamie Moyer."

Yankees 7, Blue Jays 0: At Least it Wasn't 12-1 | 16 comments | Create New Account

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