Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Mariners 7, Blue Jays 5: The Search For Sportsnet

Mariners 7, Blue Jays 5: The Search For Sportsnet

With increased workloads here, you'll have to be content with another "day in the life of" Game Report. This time, I move from the MLB.com GameDay experience to an explanation of the difficult process of finding a television showing the baseball game.

And by explanation, I mean running diary.

Prologue -- I come back from dinner and zip down to the lounge, notebook in hand. Nobody's here. It's too calm for my liking...

6:55 -- Don't you just hate when different channels are different numbers on the TV? Sportsnet is 53 at home, and it's 22 here. It took me forever just to find the TV Guide channel, which defeats the purpose of the TV Guide channel.

6:57 -- Was that Julia Roberts in a Dave Matthews video? Television is a new and strange animal to me now...

6:58 -- I haven't actually watched TV in two weeks, and the first sporting event I see is the highlight package from an Atlanta Thrashers game. You can have highlights in a Thrashers game?

7:01 -- Let me state now that I may not be able to report on this entire game. Tonight, as far as I know, is not "O.C. Night" or "Gilmore Girls Night" but rest assured it is some type of night and that type of programming will push Rogers Jays on Sportsnet aside.

7:02 -- Sorry, "Jays on Rogers Sportsnet."

7:03 -- Counting both chairs and couches, there are 13 seats in this room. Yet we had over 25 in here at the last Movie Night....yeah, it's Seattle-Toronto, cut me some slack.

7:04 -- When two soft-tossing lefties face off, do fans of either team look forward to the game?

7:05 -- Rance!

7:07 -- Are you unclear about nuclear energy?

TOP OF THE FIRST

7:09 -- First pitch. Oh, a foul ball right into the Tom Wilson Souvenir Zone. I guess nobody's there because there's no Tom Wilson to provide souvenirs. Another point against poor Huck.

7:11 -- Two things. Ichiro! is fun to watch and I expected Hudson to get that grounder despite him not being on the field.

7:12 -- "What a dandy [play by Hill]," says Jamie. "Yes, it was," says Rob.

7:14 -- Remember how I said this room seats 13? It's quite lonely when 12 of those seats are empty.

BOTTOM OF THE FIRST

7:17 -- Moyer is not getting the calls against Hill here. I wonder if Downs faced the same strike zone. I must check.

7:20 -- Oh, wait -- C.B. Bucknor? This should be fun.

7:22 -- Back to back visits to the empty lounge here. The first visitor wondered what was up and left soon after. The second one informed me that tonight is a football night. See! I told you there was some sort of Night! In this building, football trumps baseball. It's like a cruel version of Euchre.

7:25 -- Yeah, it looks like I'm getting kicked out of here. I thought Monday Night Football was on at 9. What's this 7:30 all about? As we switch over to ABC, I see that "HALF-BAKED" was the final challenge on Wheel of Fortune. How nice.

(At this point, I was in the chat complaining about the lounge. My running commentary continued.)

7:30 -- Why is Monday Night Football on at 7:30? Why?? I just got kicked out of the lounge for Giants-Whocares.

7:36 -- Aha! A possible television has just opened up! So long, GameDayers and MLB.tvers.

(It was not particularly relevant commentary, but I shall include it anyway. And yes, for those wondering, I share bathroom and shower facilities. But I do have my own room. And the showers are generally clean. Back to the running diary.)

7:38 -- Okay, never mind. No TV.

7:39 -- Everyone who has responded to my "Football is on" complaint said "But it's not 9:00!" And there you have MNF's cultural impact.

7:48 -- To fill you in on the last nine non-baseball minutes, we were analyzing the opening sequence of The Simpsons, frame-by-frame in lieu of a calculus assignment. Canada's best and brighest, working for you!

7:54 -- It's the episode where Bart goes to a Catholic school and they just showed a statue of someone named "St. Jerome." Immediately, everyone in the room went, "Hey, St. Jerome!" It's a Waterloo thing. Joe will understand.

8:13 -- Yes, 20 minutes later and still no baseball. I wonder if Moyer was able to break 88 while I've been gone.

BOTTOM OF THE FIFTH

8:34 -- I'm back! Just in time for a Betancourt error. I guess it's halftime in the 7:30 football game...nobody is here. "You Only Move Twice" might be the funniest episode ever, but let's not start that discussion again. (In terms of Humour divided by Number Of Words Homer Says, it has to be top-3.)

8:35 -- 4-3, eh? It's better than 3-4, I guess. Marty Pevey as the first base coach? I forgot he got "the call." Good for him.

8:37 -- Sparky's back to being a woodsman, I see. Can he hit RH pitching with that beard? (Okay, that was mean. Sorry, Reed.)

8:39 -- Moyer still isn't getting the calls on the inside corner against righties. Don't ask me why; I still have "Oh, the Hammock District!" playing over and over in my head.

8:42 -- What the hell is the strike zone tonight? Bucknor is awful. Oooh, something interesting here as Bucknor has glared at Koskie for the entire AB.

8:44 -- This has to be a joke. If there was anyone else in the lounge, I would have looked at them in disbelief over that play. Alas, I had to settle for the curtains. They agreed that it was ridiculous.

8:46 -- And there goes the baseball game. "Dude, this isn't football. We're watching football, dude. This isn't football." That's word for word, by the way. I'll hold strong here as long as I can.

TOP OF THE SIXTH

8:47 -- McGowan? What happened to Downs? I didn't notice the pitching change until the pitcher threw a ball that was actually fast. Also known as a fastball.

8:48 -- Phil Cuzzi!?!? You're kidding me! Cuzzi and Bucknor on the same crew?? What's the opposite of the Dream Team?

8:49 -- As Morse strikes out, I notice an ad for a Hitachi HDTV set behind home plate as I watch this game on a -- aw, crap, two-base error by McGowan, Jeremy Reed to third -- TV without high-def made by RCA -- Yes! Great play by Huckaby on the rundown! 3xH,52! -- and I'm not sure if that is significant in any way at all.

8:52 -- Did Ichiro! almost homer? Would that be a "HR!"?

8:53 -- Hey, I'm still here. Seven minutes and holding strong!

BOTTOM OF THE SIXTH

8:54 -- There's a Katrina Relief ad with a young woman in the stands featured in the spot, sort of like the NFH closeup during some Digital Camera day or something...anyway, my first thought was, "Oh, her name is Katrina." Was that abnormal?

8:56 -- Alex Rios has a HR and a triple? Screw that, Hinske just got very mad at Bucknor. I don't care if the strike zone is consistent if it's wrong. If my mathematical proofs were consistently wrong, I'd get laughed all the way to Laurier.

8:57 -- And out #3. That inning = subpar. QED.

8:59 -- Nobody seems to know what time the football game started. Yet, we cannot watch baseball. And now I learn that the game did not start at 7:30 at all, despite the TV Guide channel saying it did.

9:01 -- Another badly acted MNF intro. Yet, we cannot watch baseball.

9:02 -- I have never been so depressed to see Al Michaels in my life.

BOTTOM OF THE SEVENTH

9:17 -- "All that work for nothing!" Exact quote from the Don on this floor, the ever-gracious Don allowing me to watch the game on the cable-equipped TV in his suite-style room. (Oh, and he was talking about the 10-pitch Reed Johnson groundout.)

TOP OF THE EIGHTH

9:18 -- And thus we have the first time I have been unhappy to realize Batista's going to pitch. Speier 8, Batista 9. Terrific.

9:21 -- "I had to shave it. I looked like a doofus." Provide your own context here.

9:22 -- C.B. Bucknor is a confrontational jerk.

9:23 -- Looking around this room...is that an X-Box controller or a small hovercraft?

9:26 -- More from Marc, the gracious Don: "I wish I had the patience to play baseball, man! I stand there in the outfield, twiddling my thumbs and then a fly ball hits me in the face. And that's just bad news."

BOTTOM OF THE EIGHTH

9:29 -- Is Koskie hitting anything these days??

9:30 -- Nope. Something's not right here.

9:31 -- I did it again! Batista's name was mentioned and I shuddered. To the ninth we go, boys.

TOP OF THE NINTH

(Time for one straight paragraph, copied exactly as I wrote it as to show my mental state. And I promise I did not change anything after the fact.)

9:32 -- 9-1-2 for Batista. 1 is Ichiro! Not good. Single by Lou Dobbs. Also not good. A pinch runner for a pinch hitter? Bunt! Safe! That Ichiro! both amazes me and pisses me off. First and second, nobody out, some guy up. Who is this? He looks young. Batista keeps stepping off. Oh, it's Ramon Santiago. He's the best they have in the ninth? Is Speizio at home counting his money? More bunting! Stop throwing balls! I love how the Jays are using the bastard play but it didn't work. Second and third, one out. Ibanez intentionally walked. Did Batista almost throw that one wild? When do we just say "Okay, you get first base. Screw throwing four pitches!" Sexson has 37 homers? Wait, no. No. NO, DON'T. NO! There are so many unprintable words I have said in the last five seconds, it's amazing.

9:38 -- "Miguel Batista? Is he on our team? Grand slam? Is that bad?"

9:40 -- I'm done. Thanks to every Blue Jay wearing 43 for making my first game in two weeks beyond enjoyable.

9:42 -- I know there's another half-inning left, but I don't care. I walk into my friend's room down the hall and the entire gang is there. I announce that the Jays lost right at the end, and immediately someone pipes up with "Yep, sounds like a Toronto team."

Oh, there's more! I then complained that nobody was providing sympathy or even pity and this was her response:

"If you cheer for the Jays, there's no way I will pity you. I will mock and demean you, but pity is out."

Posted by Rob on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 07:30 AM EDT.

Mariners 7, Blue Jays 5: The Search For Sportsnet | 28 comments | Create New Account

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

GrrBear - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:26 AM EDT (#128384) #

Batista giving up the slam doesn't bother me - you could kinda see it coming.

What does bother me is this obsession in batting Koskie in the middle of the lineup no matter who the opposing pitcher happens to be. I know he's Canadian and who wants to slag a fellow countryman, but the guy's got a .606 OPS against lefties this year. He's got a .218 .318 .345 line in September and let's face it, he's been a black hole all season long. Why does Gibbons insist on Koskie batting cleanup? Is it that magical 'righty-lefty-righty' combination? I know Hinske has been derided most of the season, but Eric's having a better season than Corey, so what is it? Is it a blind spot? Do we not want to admit that Corey - for whatever reason, injury-related or not - is simply not what we hoped he would be, and maybe never will?

VBF - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 10:14 AM EDT (#128390) #

With a one run lead against the Seattle Mariners, the Jays offence deserved to win in the ninth. Batista blows it and what do they do? They bring the winning run to the plate 10 minutes later. I don't think we have the talent yet to go past this, but you have got to love the constant pursuit of winning that this team possesses. I wasn't angry at Batista because I couldn't see the Jays win. I'm angry because 15 other guys worked their ass off to get to the end, and Batista gives it away. The Jays definitely promote a team atmosphere in the clubhouse but I can't help but wonder how little friends he's making.

braden - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 10:34 AM EDT (#128391) #

How much longer does Gibbons stick with Miguel as closer? I know it has been said that the worst thing you can do for a closer's confidence is to take his job away from him. First off, I don't know if I buy this but secondly, I have to think that constantly blowing saves, often in grand fashion, has to be more of a blow to Batista's psyche. Besides, as has been mentioned, it's simply not fair to the rest of the team.

A couple of weeks ago, before both the Lee and Sexson debacles, it was suggested that leaving Batista in the role in order to pad his stats with the hopes of unloading him in the offseason was perhaps the most prudent course of action. With Batista now having blown close to 25% of his save opportunities, I wouldn't think even the most brain-dead GM would be interested, especially not at $4.7 million. Thus, is there any real reason for continuing to trot Miguel out there? I certainly can't think of one.

Wildrose - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 10:47 AM EDT (#128392) #

I'm not a huge believer in spending lots of money on closers, and personally I'd probably just move Speier into the role, but I will point out that this fellow appears to be a free agent at seasons end.

Named For Hank - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:09 AM EDT (#128393) #

How much longer does Gibbons stick with Miguel as closer?

Seeing as how these games mean nothing to the Jays since they can't make the playoffs, why not see if he comes out of his tailspin? Better than dropping him into the middle of the bullpen and then checking if he got it back in Spring Training.

It sucks to lose, but these losses don't matter. Development and figuring out what you have are both far more important than winning at this point in the season. And so, I personally would like to see Batista close for the rest of the season. He'll either come around or he won't, and we'll have a better idea of what the team needs to do for next season than we would with Batista riding the pine for two weeks.

sweat - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:09 AM EDT (#128394) #

If I'm Gibbons I tell Batista he isnt allowed to shake Zaun anymore. Or huck. Or whoever.

Cristian - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:12 AM EDT (#128395) #

Dempster is proof that anyone can be a closer if given an opportunity. Then again, I don't know what Batista proves. Maybe the Jays should look into psychological profiling. Maybe it takes a certain personality type to be effective in that role.

That stated, has anyone at Batter's Box asked the Jays whether they do any psych profiling for potential draft picks and free agents? It might make an interesting interview.

Ducey - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:15 AM EDT (#128397) #

I keep wondering whether Batista's problems are not all his own making. He has had control problems which have led management to reduce the types of pitches he throws. This makes sense but all he seems to throw now is a cutter. It is apparently a good pitch (low 90's with movement), but he needs something else slower that he can put in the zone consistently.

I would hope the Jays would not give up on him but maybe spend the offseason working on control and a breaking ball. They do not have a lot of guys who can throw mid 90's (who does?) and if you let him go he is the type of guy who will put it together for someone else.

Christopher - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:24 AM EDT (#128398) #

It sucks to lose, but these losses don't matter. Development and figuring out what you have are both far more important than winning at this point in the season.

You don't think these kinds of demoralizing losses have a negative effect on the team? I don't know if I'd agree with that.

I don't think losses and their effects can be lumped into one pile. I think one can often find a silver lining in late season losses when it involves young players getting playing time, hanging in tough with playoff calibre teams, etc., but not losses like these.

I agree that developing individual talent is important late in the season, but I think it should be coordinated with trying to develop a winning culture as well.

Flex - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:32 AM EDT (#128399) #

I will say here what I said in the other thread that's gone cold -- when Huckaby came out to talk to Batista in the ninth, after the single and the bunt for a hit, he looked scared. I've seen him look worried before, but that was the first time I saw fear. So that tells me he's psyching himself out.

Four Seamer - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:34 AM EDT (#128400) #

They do not have a lot of guys who can throw mid 90's (who does?) and if you let him go he is the type of guy who will put it together for someone else.

That's always a possibility, but I'm not inclined to believe that a 34 year old who's on his seventh major league team is suddenly going to put it all together with a change of scenery.

NFH suggested that since these games are meaningless, they should keep running him out there, to see if he can develop into a closer. I don't know that I agree with that. I'd like to see some of the younger players get some at-bats these next couple of weeks for developmental purposes, even if it is at the expense of the team the best chance at winning, but Batista is a different case. Given his age and his track record, there really isn't any reason to believe he's going to develop into a top-flight closer, and I'd be very surprised if the Jays are entertaining any thoughts of starting him in this role again next year. It doesn't necessarily follow that they start handing the ball to someone else in that situation for the rest of the year, but I don't think that making a change now, officially or unofficially, would be detrimental to the club going forward.

Besides all that, it's fine to put development ahead of winning games, but once the team is in the position late in the ballgame to get a victory, I think winning has to take precedence over a quixotic quest to convert a journeyman into a closer. Gibby owes that much to the fans and the rest of the team.

Wildrose - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:35 AM EDT (#128401) #

It almost seems like the team is trying to "break" Batista's stubborness. Renowned for shaking off his catcher and marching to the beat of his own drummer, the team keeps running him out there, almost saying "go ahead pitch your way, don't throw any off-speed pitches and lets see the results". I agree with other posters, he looks shell shocked, his confidence destroyed. This sure has been ugly.

Magpie - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:39 AM EDT (#128402) #

I agree that developing individual talent is important late in the season, but I think it should be coordinated with trying to develop a winning culture as well.

I agree entirely, and I think it's especially important to do your best to win your home games, in front of your own fans. It's true that September is also for looking things over, but games on the road are when you should be doing that...

Wildrose - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#128403) #

By off-speed,(granted he doesn't seem to have much of a change-up/curve)I'm refering to his split finger pitch. On the weekend Mullinicks questioned why he didn't throw it more,( maybe it hurts his elbow?)and Zaun has publically complained on his over reliance on the cutter.

Pistol - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:50 AM EDT (#128404) #

"That stated, has anyone at Batter's Box asked the Jays whether they do any psych profiling for potential draft picks and free agents? It might make an interesting interview."

Not specifically that I know of, but in regards to potential draft picks I believe the area scouts will talk with various people about particular players to learn more about a player's personaltiy, work ethic, etc.. So they're doing more than just simply scouting, but I doubt there's specific psychological testing being done.

However, I do know the Boston Celtics the past few years have someone that they consult with on players they're interested in. Here's a link: http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2005/02/06/brain_sell?mode=PF

Named For Hank - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 12:06 PM EDT (#128405) #

NFH suggested that since these games are meaningless, they should keep running him out there, to see if he can develop into a closer.

That's not quite what I said -- see, he was a very serviceable closer for more than half of the year, I'd say three quarters of the year. I say keep running him out there to see if he can get that back or not. If he had stunk all year I'd agree with you.

Craig B - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 12:16 PM EDT (#128406) #

The Baltimore Orioles are extremely active in doing psychological profiling both of current players, and even potential draft picks. The Orioles will not draft certain players who their psychologists take a dislike to.

Four Seamer - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 12:22 PM EDT (#128407) #

That's not quite what I said -- see, he was a very serviceable closer for more than half of the year, I'd say three quarters of the year. I say keep running him out there to see if he can get that back or not. If he had stunk all year I'd agree with you.

That's a fair comment - you did suggest that September was the appropriate time to both develop young talent and evaluate what talent you have on hand. There is a distinction between these activities, and I apologize for glossing over it in my first post.

But that said, what are these next two weeks realistically going to tell you? I think the Jays have a pretty good handle on whether they want to entrust Batista to this role again next year, or at least I'd hope they do. How many save opportunities will he get over the course of the next couple of weeks? At the rate of about 1.5 opportunities a week so far, maybe another three, perhaps four. If he comes in and is lights out over three performances against expanded rosters, are you going to be able to confidently say that his problems are solved, and the closer role settled for next year?

Craig B - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 12:22 PM EDT (#128408) #

By the way, what was wrong with Frasor in the closer role? I thought he was fine. I know they tried to get Batista a shot at it because he's a more valuable pitcher, but I'd be quite content to let Frasor (or Speier) take the role and run with it.

Flex - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 12:29 PM EDT (#128410) #

Frasor had his own battles with confidence, as I recall. Seems to me the pattern was remarkably similar to what has happened with Batista, but it happened earlier in the year. In fact, Frasor went through the same thing in July of this year, but they found a way to work him through it, and now he's back to being reliable again. It's possible that the lessons learned would equip him for the role. We should also consider that allowing Batista to work through this might do him the same good, since right now there's nothing to lose.

Named For Hank - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 01:00 PM EDT (#128413) #

But that said, what are these next two weeks realistically going to tell you? I think the Jays have a pretty good handle on whether they want to entrust Batista to this role again next year, or at least I'd hope they do.

Haven't the vast majority of Batista's poor performances come in this one three-week stretch? I can't see basing next year's decision on just three weeks, either.

Grimlock - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#128415) #

<i>Haven't the vast majority of Batista's poor performances come in this one three-week stretch? I can't see basing next year's decision on just three weeks, either.</i>

More like three months, not three weeks. He was 10-for-14 in save opportunities in July and August, with a 1-5 record. If we want to find out what we have, why not try someone else? As a closer, he has stunk since the All-Star break.

Magpie - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 01:14 PM EDT (#128416) #

Ron alluded to this in the Instant Replay thread - Batista announced in the spring that he wasn't going to talk to the media.

Batista is the one guy on the team, because of his job description, who should not be doing that. The Star's Richard Griffin, in a generally sympathetic piece, is absolutely right on this subject:

Batista doesn't see that by not standing up for himself after a loss, he is forcing his teammates or the coaches to do the talking for him. That can be dangerous in the emotional afterglow of a loss for the catcher, Zaun, or the pitching coach, Brad Arnsberg, the two most likely people to be approached regarding a Batista blown save.

It has already led to some friction in the clubhouse.

How could it not?

Thaskins - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 01:19 PM EDT (#128417) #

I know we�re all hating on poor Mr. Batista right now but if you step back and look at him as a player over his career wouldn�t he still have some value to other teams? What about in pitching friendly places like San Diego or Washington in a league he�s more familiar with? Couldn�t some team look at his performance and see a potential undervalued player? $4.7 million is probably a little much to pay but if the Jays were to eat $1 million I bet they could deal him. His performance sucks right now but a team could look at a decent ERA this year and the potential to throw 200 innings of league average to slightly above league average innings and see value. He�ll look like a better pitcher once we get out of this narrow little time frame.

So I guess my point is, it�s probably a better option to flip him to someone else than to plug him in a role (long relief) the Jays have plenty of candidates for.

Ryan Day - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:00 PM EDT (#128418) #

Keeping Batista as closer for the rest of the month should probably depend on exactly what the problem is. If he's worn out from all the appearances, then he should sit out a few save opportunities and rest. If it's a problem of strategy between Batista and Zaun, as has been suggested, then I also tend to think Batista should be pulled - Zaun clearly has the respect of the coaches and the rest of the pitching staff.

If, on the other hand, Batista is simply struggling with his stuff for no apparent reason, then you may as well keep him as the closer in hopes he recovers. After all, he was pretty good for the first half of the season.

John Northey - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#128419) #

Checking Batista's stats by month at ESPN...

I'm using IP/HR/BB/SO Sv/Blown Saves

Mth IP  HR BB SO Sv BlSv
Apr 10   0  3  3  6   1
May 12.1 0  3  9  3   0
Jun 13   3  2 10  5   0
Jul 15   1  6 11  3   2
Aug 13.1 3  9 11  7   2
Sep  8   2  3  6  4   3

So, what does this tell us?

Batista was keeping the ball in the park early on, thus getting saves with low K totals
when he got the K's up in June he also started to give up the long ball
In July he got wilder but had some bad luck vs earlier. He also started throwing more innings (season high 13 games out of 25 the Jays played)
In August he became very wild, perhaps in an effort to keep the K's up and started giving up HR's. He also pitched in 12 games out of 28, his second highest total for the season.
In Sept he has died off, pitching in 9 of 17 games.
Looking at the game log he tossed in two consecutive games just once in April, 3 in a row to start May, plus one other 2 in a row in May, 3 times in June he pitched two in a row, then in July the manager got greedy as Batista pitched 2 in a row twice and 3 in a row two other times, in August he threw 2 in a row just 2 times, in September 2 times plus the just completed 3 in a row.

One wonders if the consecutive game bit has hurt Batista and if it weakens him. 3 games off in a row is as long a break as he has had all season. Looking at the game log it doesn't appear two or three in a row hurts him at the time but I wonder if he just wasn't ready for it yet. Perhaps making sure he always has a day off after pitching would've kept him fresh, thus creating the need for a second closer who also would have a day off between closings (say, Speier or Frasor) during which he might be available as the setup man.

Speier had a horrid April (over 7 ERA) then was below 2 in ERA in May/June/July, then 3.95 August and 2.35 Sept. If anyone was judged on just one month it was Speier. In May and June Speier pitched in consecutive games just twice, then 5 straight in mid-July, had one bad outing in August (5 of his 6 runs given up were in that one game vs Cleveland), and that is about it.

I think the biggest question is what do you want in a closer? I think it is to have him give up 0 runs most of the time and when he does blow up he blows up real good since the game is over once he gives up anything. Speier has been scored on in 8 games since April plus another 5 in April alone for a total of 13 times in 62 games (21%). Batista has been scored on a total of 23 times in 67 games (34%). Now, that may not be fair as Speier was used in setup roles sometimes so remove the under 1 inning 0 runs from the formula (if they allowed a run it might have ended the game thus I keep those in). This cuts one game from Batista and 5 from Speier. So the new percentages of games where they could've blown a save in the usual closer role (9th inning with a 1-3 run lead) is 22.8% vs 34.8%. Thus you could expect that, all else equal, Speier would've saved 7-8 games that Batista wouldn't have if all were 1 run games.

Note: I was surprised when checking that Batista did not allow a run in his first 20 converted saves. In fact just twice has Batista allowed a run to score (not counting inherited runners) while getting a save. I thought it would be a lot worse. Btw, candidate #3, Frasor, has allowed runs in 18 out of 61 games or 29.5%. 3 of those were under an inning pitched/0 runs thus the percentage should be 31.0% which is still better than Batista.

CaramonLS - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:31 PM EDT (#128424) #

I want Kyle Farnsworth for 2006!

Chuck - Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 04:27 PM EDT (#128429) #

I want Kyle Farnsworth for 2006!

The same Kyle Farnsworth who's career ERA's, starting in in 1999, have been: 5.05, 6.43, 2.74, 7.33, 3.30, 4.73, 2.00?

Looks a lot like the Jose Mesa career roller coaster. Somebody will pay big to see Farnsworth repeat his 2005.

Mariners 7, Blue Jays 5: The Search For Sportsnet | 28 comments | Create New Account

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