Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Jays 3 - Devil Rays 2

Jays 3 - Devil Rays 2 - Fortune Shines on Toronto

A few thoughts about the Blue Jays on this somber anniversary.

Fortune Shines on Dave Bush and the Blue Jays

There's been a lot of discussion the last month about how the Jays have been either unlucky or bad with runners on base since the All-Star break (even if it isn't particularly supported by the stats).

Do you ever notice how rarely we discuss when things go unexpectedly well for the Jays?

Yesterday Dave Bush walked 3, struck out 3, and allowed a homerun, but only gave up 2 runs? This was largely due to only allowing 4 hits over 8 innings. If we exclude the walks, the strikeouts, and the homer, there were 20 batters who put the ball in play. Only 3 of them got hits - a .150 average. Call it good defense or good luck - either way the Jays should have given up far more hits and far more runs than they did. Given that they only scored 3 runs, they were exceptionally lucky to win yesterday's game.

Speaking of Things We Don't Talk About Anymore

Anyone notice how we almost never discuss baserunning on the Box? It used to be a staple in the first two years of JP's reign. How much of that has to do with departure of Carlos Delgado. A BP study of baserunning had Delgado as one of the 10 worst baserunners in MLB since 1972. Having watched him his entire career, I believe it.

Dave Bush - Pre and Post All-Star Break

Pre : 0-5, 4.41 K/9, 1.70 BB/9, 1.70 HR/9, 4.89 ERA
Post: 5-3, 5.31 K/9, 1.64 BB/9, 0.95 HR/9, 3.27 ERA

Which David Bush will be seen in 2006? The margin between journeyman and 2/3 starter is pretty low, as shown by the K/9 and HR/9 rates.

The Bats

The Jays don't have a .300 hitter on the team. Their leading slugger only has 24 homeruns and has a .315 OBP. No other player has 20 or more homeruns. The leading OBP on the team is by a slow running catcher (yes, I know, that's redundant) with little power.

Yet this team is still roughly league average in runs scored, thanks to having no real sinkholes with the bat:

Shea:      289/343/428
Cat:       289/358/419
Reed:      274/336/427
Hill:      272/333/393
O-Dog:     271/315/412
League Av: 269/330/428 (approx)
Wells:     269/316/466
Rios:      263/309/390
Hinske:    260/336/421
Zaun:      260/359/381
Koskie:    245/325/413

I can't remember any other team where all of the everyday players were all about average. This is a big contrast to last season, when you had highs like Delgado and lows like Mr. Dave Berg.

Final Words

YANKEES LOSE! YANKEES LOSE!

Posted by Pepper Moffatt on Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 08:55 AM EDT.

Jays 3 - Devil Rays 2 - Fortune Shines on Toronto | 20 comments | Create New Account

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

Thomas - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 09:43 AM EDT (#127788) #

Who were the other 9 worst?

Magpie - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 09:46 AM EDT (#127789) #

Who were the other 9 worst?

Trot Nixon is one of the worst I've ever seen... Other suggestions?

Pepper Moffatt - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 09:52 AM EDT (#127791) #

Worst Career Baserunning Totals 1972-2004 As Ranked by EQBR

 1. Fred McGriff
 2. Mike Piazza
 3. Edgar Martinez
 4. John Olerud
 5. Todd Zeile
 6. Tino Martinez
 7. Darrin Fletcher
 8. Mo Vaughn
 9. Carlos Delgado
10. Eric Karros

Delgado's poor ranking is more due to his lack of trying to take the extra base than it is him getting nailed taking it, though he ranks poorly in both scores.

Fred McGriff's low total is partly due to his long career (it's a counting stat) - his attempt and success rates are both better than Delgado's.

Jim - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 10:07 AM EDT (#127792) #

'Yet this team is still roughly league average in runs scored'

... not corrected for the park.

They are 11th in EQA. Chicago might pass them by the end of the year, they trail by 3 runs. In equal settings Detroit and Anaheim probably would have more runs, so if September isn't a good month that leaves the Jays 10th, ahead of BAL/SEA/MIN/KC.

Of course they could have a good September, keep the White Sox behind them and catch Tampa and finish 6th.

To me this feels much more like the 9th or 10th best offense in the league then the 6th though.

Dave Till - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#127793) #

I enjoyed the list of Worst Career Baserunning Totals, especially since the last three Blue Jays first basemen (before this year's Shea/Dude mix) are on the list. That's 17 consecutive years of world-class crappy baserunning!

Of course, first basemen are not usually evaluated on their baserunning skills.

Pistol - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 10:44 AM EDT (#127795) #

Yet this team is still roughly league average in runs scored

But it's a well below average offensive team if you look at EqA.

#	TEAM	EqA
1	BOS	0.275
2	NYA	0.273
3	TBA	0.267
4	CLE	0.266
5	BAL	0.265
6	TEX	0.265
7	DET	0.258
8	ANA	0.254
9	OAK	0.252
10	CHA	0.251
11	TOR	0.250
12	SEA	0.248
13	KCA	0.247
14	MIN	0.247
--	Ave	0.258

The Jays are closer to being the worst offensive team in the AL than an average AL offensive team. Of course the White Sox and A's are similarly poor so it doesn't mean you can't win with a lineup like that (providing your pitching is outstanding).

Flex - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 11:02 AM EDT (#127796) #

Doesn't it seem odd that almost four years after Ricciardi arrived, armed with his "get a guy for his bat even if he has to drag his glove over to the base" mentality, that we've wound up with a good pitching/defense, lousy hitting team? And a minor league system stocked with pitchers? I mean, shouldn't we have become the Texas Rangers by now?

He'd say, as he has in the past, that it's all to do with the budget he was hampered with, not being able to afford guys who can both hit and defend. But I wonder if the realities of being a GM have changed his outlook. All he talks about now is getting more pitching.

I also wonder whether he's bought into the notion, espoused by people like John Thorn, that if your park favours one style of play (in our case, hitting) then you build your team with the opposite strength.

By the way, I happen to think his new philosophy, if that's what it is, is the right one.

BallGuy - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 11:46 AM EDT (#127798) #

I agree with what Flex has posted above. I like JP not because he has made moves that I agree with but rather he adapts as his team's situation changes. For example, he came here saying he wanted a patient, good hitting team...the typical Moneyball example that is given. However, things have not worked out that way. He has an abundance of pitching and wants to build on that instead of forcing his apparent pre-arrival notion of what he wanted his team to be.
The biggest thing I got out of Moneyball was that Billy Beane (and others) were able to look at a situation that was not working for them and come up with another model to fit their situation. They adapted when they had to and most successful managers, corporations, businesses and teams are able to do that regularly. JP seems able to do that. I would suggest that many teams (organizations, businesses etc) that go for many years without success are unable or unwilling to adapt successfully.
Certainly the upcoming NHL season with all of that league's changes will let fans see who the truly bright minds in the league are and who is stuck in an outmoded way of thinking.

Jonny German - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 12:36 PM EDT (#127799) #

Doesn't seem odd at all to me. Why do you say Ricciardi had that mentality? Because that's the type of team the A's were as described in Moneyball? Even if Ricciardi can be called a Moneyball GM, Moneyball isn't about a certain type of player or team!

Joseph Krengel - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 12:43 PM EDT (#127800) #

I think that Todd Stottlemeyer deserves an honourary mention on that list.

As far as big bats for the Jays, one thing that I've noticed the last few years is that there has been a very quick transition from established (read guys who teams like to trade) to more prospect-like sluggers. With the exception of Bonds, Ortiz and ARod, the real impact hitters in the last four years have been young guys for the most part; young guys who have small contracts which teams don't trade away.

JayFan0912 - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 01:13 PM EDT (#127804) #

I want to make a point about Bush, most of the time after the all star break he faced relatively crappy or slumping offensive teams -- mostly Tampa Bay and Baltimore. Before the all star break he faced boston a lot ...

IMO, this offseason should be about getting a couple of power bats and trying to trade two of chacin/bush/lilly along with rios for a #1/#2 starter. I am not sure what you can get for the above package, but it seems to me a guy like ben sheets could be obtained, especially with his recent injury problems.

BallGuy - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 01:14 PM EDT (#127805) #

What gets me about all the hub-bub about Moneyball is that so many people didn't realize it was about one way of doing things as a response to a changed market. The analysis in Jonny's link is spot on. I would have thought that people like Joe Morgan and Richard Griffin who slammed Moneyball, Beane, JP and all those who apparently subscribed to the book's tenets would have been able to pick up on that.
Guess not.
As my philosophy prof at Laurier said (quoting RD Laing) many moons ago: "The map is not the territory."

Flex - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 01:19 PM EDT (#127806) #

Jonny, I say he had that mentality because that's how he described his mentality when he arrived. I'm not pulling something out Moneyball. That statement of his mentality that I put in quote marks is actually what he said, give or take a word lost to memory.

Anders - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 01:52 PM EDT (#127808) #

Thank you Jonny. My favourite part about reading Aaron Gleeman is his bi-weekly moneyball rant.

Also, does anyone else remember how Gord Ash hoarded pitching prospects up the wazoo, and how little ended up coming out of that?

Just a thought.

Jonny German - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#127809) #

I say he had that mentality because that's how he described his mentality when he arrived.

Fair enough. I never heard him say that, particularly not in express terms like that - I did hear him talk about how they'd like guys that can do it all, but with a limited budget they had to choose which skills they could live without. The only real "punting defence" move that comes to mind is Frank Catalanotto as a right fielder.

Jonny German - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#127810) #

I want to make a point about Bush, most of the time after the all star break he faced relatively crappy or slumping offensive teams -- mostly Tampa Bay and Baltimore.

Thought I'd check this out...

American League, post All-Star:

RK	TEAM	        G	R	R/G	Bush
1	Boston	        54	334	6.19	
2	Texas	        56	297	5.30	
3	Oakland	        54	284	5.26	
4	Cleveland	54	272	5.04	
5	NY Yankees	55	275	5.00	x
6	Tampa Bay	54	269	4.98	xx
7	Detroit 	54	249	4.61	xxx
8	Chicago Sox	55	248	4.51	x
9	Toronto  	53	236	4.45	
10	Seattle 	54	239	4.43	
11	LA Angels	53	233	4.40	x
12	Kansas City	53	223	4.21	x
13	Minnesota	55	211	3.84	
14	Baltimore	54	201	3.72	xx

That's a net of 4.49 R/G for Bush opponents post-All-Star, compared to a league average of 4.71 R/G.

Rob - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 03:04 PM EDT (#127811) #

I believe JP said if he could have one of hitting/defense/pitching, it would be hitting. If he could have two, it would be the other two.

StephenT - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#127813) #

I liked Moffatt's report. Just to add to the comments by Jim and Pistol: my own list has the Jays' currently 12th in park-adjusted offense (though my park factors do not include this year's data).

Here's my raw data, which agrees with Mike's statement that "this team is still roughly league average in runs scored", particularly if you take league average as 4.79 (from (4.83+4.74)/2=4.785, i.e. the mean of the league's offense and defensive averages (which are skewed by interleague games)):

 Runs Scored Per 9 IP   Runs Allowed Per 9 IP        Winning Percentage
( 1)      Boston 5.85 | ( 1)      Angels 3.91 | ( 1)   White Sox  87-54  .617
( 2)       Texas 5.51 | ( 2)   White Sox 3.97 | ( 2)      Boston  83-58  .589
( 3)   NYYankees 5.44 | ( 3)     Oakland 4.05 | ( 3)   Cleveland  81-61  .570
( 4)     Oakland 4.86 | ( 4)   Minnesota 4.06 | ( 4)      Angels  80-61  .567
( 5)   Cleveland 4.81 | ( 5)   Cleveland 4.08 | ( 5)   NYYankees  79-62  .560
( 6)   Tampa Bay 4.80 | ( 6)     TORONTO 4.34 | ( 5)     Oakland  79-62  .560
( 7)     TORONTO 4.75 | ( 7)     Seattle 4.69 | ( 7)   Minnesota  73-68  .518
( 8)   White Sox 4.64 | ( 8)   NYYankees 4.96 | ( 8)     TORONTO  71-70  .504
( 9)      Angels 4.61 | ( 9)   Baltimore 4.98 | ( 9)       Texas  69-73  .486
(10)     Detroit 4.60 | (10)     Detroit 4.99 | (10)   Baltimore  66-75  .468
(11)   Baltimore 4.58 | (11)      Boston 5.14 | (11)     Detroit  64-76  .457
(12)     Seattle 4.46 | (12)       Texas 5.47 | (12)     Seattle  61-80  .433
(13) Kansas City 4.40 | (13) Kansas City 5.87 | (13)   Tampa Bay  59-84  .413
(14)   Minnesota 4.27 | (14)   Tampa Bay 5.89 | (14) Kansas City  46-94  .329
             Avg 4.83                Avg 4.74                    998-978

My park factors are as follows (again, no data from this year; these are based 50% on 2004 data, 25% on 2003, 12.5% on 2002 and 12.5% on 1999-2001, except when the park changed). Note a 5.0 means to divide by 1.050 to normalize, etc.:

 Park Factors ((PF-1)*100, hitters' parks first):
    1    2    3    3    5    6    7    8    9    9   11   11   13   14
   TEX  TOR  BOS  CHW  MIN  BAL  OAK  CLE  ANA  TAM  KAN  NYY  DET  SEA
   9.5  5.0  4.0  4.0  2.0   .0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -3.0 -4.0 -4.0 -4.5 -6.5

I converted the park-adjusted numbers to an EqA scale in the following ranking. e.g. for the Jays, the calculation is (((4.75/4.785)/1.05)^0.4)*.260 = .254, which is 12th in the league, though I was surprised to notice the White Sox were 13th:

 Park-Adjusted Team Offense (EqA scale, .260 is average):
    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12   13   14
   NYY  BOS  TEX  TAM  OAK  CLE  DET  SEA  ANA  KAN  BAL  TOR  CHW  MIN
  .278 .278 .265 .264 .263 .263 .261 .260 .259 .256 .256 .254 .253 .247

The Jays' park-adjusted run prevention however is 5th-best in the league and by far the best in the division (there's a huge gap between 6th and 7th):

 Park-Adjusted Team Defense (EqA scale, .260 is average):
    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9   10   11   12   13   14
   CHW  MIN  ANA  OAK  TOR  CLE  BOS  BAL  TEX  SEA  NYY  DET  TAM  KAN
  .238 .242 .243 .244 .245 .246 .264 .264 .265 .265 .268 .269 .286 .287

Finally, in support of Mike's claim, of the Jays with at least 100 plate appearances, the EqA range is just .241 to .272:

                Age        EqA   BA  OBP  SLG  R27   ERP   R RBI HR  SB CS   PA
  S. Hillenbrand 29 R DH  .272 .291 .344 .454  5.41   79  81  74 17   4  0  581
  F. Catalanotto 31 L LF  .269 .289 .360 .419  5.27   52  44  44  6   0  2  400
    Vernon Wells 26 R CF  .263 .268 .315 .466  4.98   77  66  80 24   3  3  584
      Russ Adams 24 L SS  .263 .270 .340 .413  4.97   57  58  59  8   9  2  456
     Eric Hinske 27 L 1B  .262 .262 .338 .422  4.92   59  71  56 12   7  4  465
      Gregg Zaun 34 S  C  .262 .262 .361 .382  4.92   54  54  53  9   1  2  449
    Reed Johnson 28 R LF  .259 .272 .334 .424  4.77   49  51  51  8   4  4  389
  Orlando Hudson 27 S 2B  .253 .271 .315 .412  4.49   59  62  63 10   7  1  501
       Alex Rios 24 R RF  .241 .261 .307 .387  3.98   52  66  54  8  13  8  479

                Age        EqA   BA  OBP  SLG  R27   ERP   R RBI HR  SB CS   PA
 Frank Menechino 34 R IF  .259 .219 .367 .359  4.76   19  19  11  4   0  1  158
    Corey Koskie 32 L 3B  .252 .241 .321 .407  4.47   38  36  32 11   2  1  327
      Aaron Hill 23 R 3B  .251 .272 .332 .391  4.42   37  36  33  3   1  1  322
   John McDonald 30 R SS  .245 .290 .340 .323  4.16   11   8  12  0   5  0  103
         TORONTO               .266 .331 .409  4.64  652 664 629 120 57 29 5405

i.e. no Jays regular is close to Delgado's .317 or Huckaby's .165:

                Age        EqA   BA  OBP  SLG  R27   ERP   R RBI HR  SB CS   PA
  Carlos Delgado FLA      .317 .295 .391 .565  7.36   93  73 101 28   0  0  539
     Ken Huckaby 34 R  C  .165 .202 .247 .238  1.55    4   7   5  0   0  0   89

(See here for more details on data sources and glossary.)

I hope people don't mind all this detailed agreeability. :-)

StephenT - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 04:19 PM EDT (#127814) #

To add one more point, while my table has the Jays 12th in offense, they are still only 6% below average. The #3 to #13 offenses are less far apart (.265 - .253 = .012) than the #6 and #7 defenses (.264 - .246 = .018).

John Northey - Sunday, September 11 2005 @ 09:10 PM EDT (#127837) #

EqA is interesting. Not sure which method is best, but I have a link to THT and they allow sorting by position and by RC/G so I'll check that now for the Jays (rank is for major leagues)...

1B...range is 10.5 (Lee) to 4.5 (Morneau)
Hinske - 4.9 rank #22/23. Ugh.
Hillenbrand - 5.6 rank #16/23

2B...range is 8.1 (Kent) to 3.6 (Cano)
Hudson - 4.5 rank #14/15

3B...Range is 8.9 (A-Rod) to 3.4 (David Bell)
Koskie - 3.8 would rank #16/19 if he qualified.
Hill - 4.9 would rank (if qualifed) #13/20 (tied with Beltre) at third, 14/16 at 2B (just above Hudson), and 13/24 at SS

SS... range 7.3 (Young) to 3.2 (Izturis) - exJays all around
Adams - 5.4 ranks 10/23.

LF... range 8.7 (Ramirez) to 4.5 (Feliz)
Catalanotto - 6.2 would rank tied for 11th/21
Johnson - 5.2 would rank 16/21

CF... range 7.6 (Edmonds) to 3.9 (Reed)
Wells - 5.1 ranks 13/17 just below Bernie Williams

RF... range 8.8 (Sheffield) to 4.0 (Rios)
Rios - 4.0 puts him dead last out of 21 (tied with ex-Jay Casey Blake but in fewer PA's)

CA... range 6.9 (Mauer) to 3.7 (I-Rod)
Zaun - 5.5 puts him #4/8 (few qualify here) out of all catchers (even those with just a few PA's) he is #19 out of 103 (Myers is dead last at -3.2 Huck is at 1.0)

So the Jays ranks are...
1B:Hinske-22/23
2B:Hudson-14/15
3B:Koskie-16/19
SS:Adams-10/23
LF:Catalanotto-11/21
CF:Wells-13/17
RF:Rios-21/21
CA:Zaun-4/8
DH:Hillenbrand-16/23 (no DH option so I just leave him vs 1B)
Ut:Hill-13/20 (3B) 14/16 (2B) or 13/24 (SS)

Thus, the Jays are above average offensively at just 3 positions (SS/LF/CA) and just barely. We have sinkholes vs the majors at RF/1B/2B (last, second last, second last). Hill would help a bit at 2B, but not much and would almost certainly be worse defensively.

So, this winter, RF/1B have to be priorities. These are high power/high OBP positions that the Jays have people playing at who hit like infielders. Like poor hitting infielders (Rios is 0.5 below Hudson, Hinske tied with Hill and both Hill and Hudson would rank 2nd last at 2B among regulars). Defense is important and I accept we have to give up something for defense but c'mon, this just looks like a bit too much. One of Hudson or Hill should be used as trade bait to find that top quality hitter along with Rios (Mr. Unlimited Potential) and some pitching prospects.

Jays 3 - Devil Rays 2 - Fortune Shines on Toronto | 20 comments | Create New Account

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