Overall, I see some great things and some bad things, and I hope its the bad things that clear up so we can have a playoff-bound season. Rios: might I remind everyone that for 2-half baseball seasons, Rios had hit 1 homerun. Then in the 2nd half of last year, he ended up getting his total up to ten. By being 2nd on the team in homeruns, I see this as a difference in kind, not degree. An article I read somewhere stated how Wells at least had a couple of years to linger between the minors and majors, whereas Rios was pulled up for the starting job right away after 1 year in the minors. Now he may have finally caught up to major league pitching, because he certainly has the physical power. Gibbons himself has said Rios is a "superstar like player," so I expect to see the platoon go if Rios continues hitting like this throughout April.

Pitching: I think Downs has been almost as bad as Towers so far (8 vs. 9.24 ERA). I seriously question Tower's “contact pitching” strategy, as he’s let up 25 hits already this year, in half as many innings. One note is that the defence is not as polished as last year. But there are still men standing in the field, and Towers has only 1 unearned run. Maybe go the way of Halladay and demote him to the minors for a bit, calling up Banks or McGowan for the 5th starting job. Tallet didn't look too good either (9 ERA). Concerning AJ, I would rather have seen him walk Konerko those two times instead of trying to sneak the cheese past him. We'll see how he deals with a simlar one-two punch in Ortiz/Ramirez on Friday. Lilly clearly pitched so well because he had a 6 run 2nd inning to give him a big confidence boost, which could be his "Jekyll factor."

He's not worth 1 1/2 Hudsons.

Oh, but he is, Mike G.  In The Fielding Bible, John Dewan has the 2005 O-Dog at +20, which meant that he made 20 plays that the average second baseman wouldn't have made.  Dewan figures, on average, that a +20 in the middle infield will save a team 9-10 runs.  Terrific, surely, and he's by far the best defensive second baseman in the league...but don't you think Troy Glaus will account for at least 14-15 runs more than would whichever hitter would have gotten those at-bats had the deal not gone down?  Hudson's bat will probably be matched by Hill's, and Glaus's glove might require him to chip in more runs with his bat to make my point (although remember, the Jays got less than a half-season out of Koskie last year).

As great as the O-Dog is defensively, I think the metrics that put his defensive value added well above 10 runs simply overstate the case (and in some cases have been corrected to be more realistic). 

Moreover, as Dave notes in his fine article, Glaus has not been the defensive joke we were all led to expect.  (Dewan had him at -12 in 2005, for what it's worth.)   He's actually played a fine defensive third base, and has surely fielded his position better than has, say, Overbay.

Moreover, as Dave notes in his fine article, Glaus has not been the defensive joke we were all led to expect.  (Dewan had him at -12 in 2005, for what it's worth.)   He's actually played a fine defensive third base, and has surely fielded his position better than has, say, Overbay

As someone who was admittedly skeptical of Glaus' defence before the season, I've been relatively impressed with what I've seen from him. He's not made any outstanding plays and nor has he flashed the leather like Rolen or Chavez or Crede. Still, he's looked very solid with his hands and has been particularly impressive coming in for bunts and mishits. I have to admit that if Glaus keeps this up all season long than there will be little drop between him and Koskie.

Mike D, John Dewan's fielding number is about right.  The thing is that normally one measures against a replacement player, rather than against average.  That's because average defence at second is not freely available. Measured against a replacement player, Hudson has been between 55 and 60 runs better per season, most of that on defence.  Glaus has been the same amount better in his full seasons since 2001, most of that on offence.  Green breaks into full voice: "DEEE-fence"...

I don't really want to think about the merits of the Glaus trade now.  It will mostly depend on Adams' development, particularly defensively.

Incidentally, Mike D, 20 plays is worth between 14 and 15 runs, taking into account the value of the out and the value of the baserunner. Whether Hudson has been 14-15 runs per game better than average defensively (Dewan has him at let's say 14.5 in 2005) or 18-25 runs per game better than average (BP has him at 18 in 2005) doesn't change the mathematics much.  He has been 40-50 runs better than replacement with the glove. Glaus has been, if anything, a little less than that with the bat.

It is true that Hudson's talent on balance is more likely to decay than Glaus' at a faster rate.

Mike G, you may well be right about the conversion of plays to runs prevented, but you can't cite Dewan as authority.  Dewan agrees with Bill James' "a little less than 50%" estimate for middle infield runs prevented vis-a-vis extra plays made.

What do you mean by "most" with respect to defence when you tab Hudson as 60 runs better than replacement player?  If you mean more than 40, it still seems far-fetched to me.  I can't imagine even an average AA player being called up and individually responsible for an additional forty runs by the sheer gap in his fielding ability.   At least not if the gap between Hudson and the average big league player is 9-10 runs.  (Or even 14-15, but I think the 9-10 is right.)

I'm curious why replacement level is a better point of comparison here.  In analyzing trades, shouldn't you consider the upgrades and downgrades represented by available alternatives rather than measuring a player's skill set against Dave Berg?  (Again, you may be right, and I'd be curious as to why you did this.)

Anybody who is "replacement level" both offensively and defensively would never come close to the major leagues.

A major league bench player who is major-league replacement level offensively would likely be average or maybe above average with the glove.

Oh, I forgot that this debate about the conversion of plays made into runs.  It's covered nicely in this piece by David Gassko (relying on research by Tango).  The nub of it seems to be that John Dewan appears to have taken into account the value of the baserunner, but not the value of the lost out.

Even if you use average players as the baseline (which analytically one shouldn't because they are simply not freely available- Ryan Roberts would not field second base as well as the average big-leaguer, for instance), Glaus is still not worth 1.5 Hudsons.  I've counted Glaus best 3 seasons in the last 5 and compared them with Hudson's only 3.  Glaus' injuries have not been counted against him, while Hudson's have been.  With all of that, Glaus might come out producing/preventing 1.5 times as runs in his best 3 of 5 years compared with Hudson's last 3, provided one sees Glaus as an average defender.  Out of curiousity, how does John Dewan's Fielding Bible (or Gassko's Range figures published in the Hardball Times annual) rate Glaus' defence? 

It's not only BP's defensive metrics that have been a little wonky with Jeter. UZR has been the same, as have plain zone rating. I'd have to spend a lot of time with his pbp data to figure out why.

A consensus has emerged, I think, in the analytic community that Jeter's performance over the last 5-7 years is probably best reflected by the his long-term ratings, i.e. somewhat below average.  Actually, BP's favourable rating for him in 2005 is not consistent with other measures; their negative rating for him in prior years was consistent with other measures.

Troy Glaus, as I mentioned earlier, scored a -12 in 2005, which represents a decline from previous years.  Oddly, he was +2 on the road and -14 at home.   (Does this bode poorly for the O-Dog?)  Dewan notes that Glaus was once excellent defensively, but that his range decreased in 2005 and he made more throwing errors.

I still can't figure out, Mike G, why replacement level is the appropriate benchmark when breaking down this trade.  Why do we have to pretend that Aaron Hill isn't with the club when we evaluate this trade?  Assuming Hill provides better-than-replacement-level defence -- which he does -- then why is the relative availability of average second base defence relevant?  When the Phillies traded Jim Thome, should we evaluate his loss as if Eric Crozier would be his replacement, even if Ryan Howard's presence basically necessitated the deal?

Statistically, Russ Adams played replacement level defence at short last year, while Aaron Hill was average at least there.  That accords with my own observations.  I am hopeful that Russ is improving, in which case the deal might work out just fine.

Anyways, I don't really want to belabor that aspect of it.  There has been much criticism of Hudson here since his departure from Toronto, and honestly it has been a little much.  It is possible to sing Glaus' praises without taking away from Hudson's considerable abilities.

I agree with you there, Mike G, and I understand your concern.  I don't mean to join a wrongheaded chorus.

I'll only say that there are some teams who, given their strengths, weaknesses, needs and alternatives on hand, might benefit from Orlando Hudson as much as (or perhaps even more than) they would from Troy Glaus.  I don't think the Jays are one of those teams, but reasonable people can differ.

Exactly... if we had been able to get a Giles or similar hitter, then giving up Hudson would not have made as much sense...  but since we couldn't, acquiring Glaus improves our total offense much more than it weakens our total defense.

I believe Hill will be a better than average 2b this year, and the gap b/w him and Hudson is much smaller than b/w Glaus and whoever would have been our #4 hitter this year.  Having Glaus in the lineup means other guys move down and improve the offense at those spots in the order...  however having Hudson only improves you at 2b.

Having said that, I wonder if the dbacks would have taken Russ Adams instead of O-dawg...  after all he's cheaper, younger, more offensive upside, a first-round pick, and they would not have had to move their other 2b to SS like they did (I believe)..  if so, Hill at SS and Hudson at 2b would be ideal in my eyes...

-- Sean

Thomas Boswell, the Washington-based sportswriter, once wrote that you should never judge a ballplayer in a unit of time shorter than a month. On the other hand, the theme of Malcolm Gladwell's Blink is that first impressions are often more valuable than carefully-reasoned opinions.

The thing about the theme of Gladwell's book, is that as a practical guide the theme gets things backwards.  (As much of his writing in other areas shows).  The important thing isn't trusting your instincts.  We all do that all the time, too often even, and we don't hold our instincts up to scrutiny carefully enough.  The important thing to know is when you're in a field of inquiry where you should not trust your instincts, and dig deeper.

Baseball is one of those.  Boswell gets it right.

Oddly enough, Blink - a book about the remarkable native and unconscious reasoning powers of the human brain - was written by an author who has done a great deal of work attacking those things that we "just know".

Now that I've basically qualified everything I have to say as worthless, my blink-like impressions of the 2006 edition:

This team is too slow.

Vernon is jumping all over pitches.

Every pitcher's getting squeezed.  I haven't seen enough other baseball to judge if it's all around the league.

Molina is reminding me more and more of Ernie Lombardi.  He better improve at catching the ball, too.  But EL is in the Hall of Fame for his hitting.

The increased competition for playing time has made almost everyone sharper, and that's why they should have brought in a good infield reserve.  Hill and Adams look sloppy, especially Hill at the plate.

As Bat-girl would say, BJ Ryan is my 2006 Blue Jays Boyfriend.  I heart him.

Don't be laying any money on any Ted Lilly starts.  Obviously.

If Doc doesn't pitch at his top effectiveness, this team isn't winning any pennants, but if he does, they just might.  Someone else said they believe in themselves... they did that last year, the thing this year is that they believe in each other too.  A nice change, since it hasn't happened in these parts in a while.

Heh, thanks for the laugh Joe.  But we have empirical evidence for Bengie Molina's having moved; we have none for the existence of proton decay (just a lower bound).  At a more prosaic level, "geologic speed" works for me.