Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Blue Jays 7, Orioles 1

Roy Halladay nips a losing streak in the bud and gives the bullpen a night off with a 104-pitch complete game gem.

Star of the Game: Halladay, naturally.

Unsung Hero: Vernon Wells supplied all the run support Doc would need with a 2-run blast in the bottom of the 1st.

For the Orioles: Miguel Tejada hit a homer for the only Baltimore run, though it should be noted that it was as cheap as they come, bouncing off the fence.

Defensive Play of the Game: Jay Gibbons and Ramon Hernandez opened the top of the 2nd with consecutive singles. The next two batters hit fly balls to medium-deep centre field, but Gibbons was unable to advance and score with Vernon doing the fielding.

At The Keystone: It was the second big-league game at second for Russ Adams, but in the first his only defensive play was a pop-up. In this one he got several ground balls and handled them all smoothly, including the final out of the game.

Boxscored

Elsewhere in the East:

Curt Schilling and Johan Santana locked horns in Minnesota, each going 8 innings and allowing just 1 run, and the Sox and Twins headed into extras tied at 1. Boston scored a run to go ahead in the top of the twelfth, but with Jonathan Papelbon having pitched the 9th and 10th, Julian Tavarez was called on for the save op. It didn’t work out so well for him, as Jason Kubel smoked a walk-off grand slam.

A less likely pitcher’s duel unfolded in New York, with Chien-Ming Wang besting Paul Byrd as the Yankees won 1 – 0, Robinson Cano supplying the scoring with a sixth inning solo shot.

Kenny Rogers and the Tigers crushed Tampa Bay 7 – 1.

Today: Scott Downs makes a spot start in place of Gustavo Chacin. The Orioles counter with Rodrigo López.

Posted by Jonny German on Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 09:15 AM EDT.

Blue Jays 7, Orioles 1 | 44 comments | Create New Account

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

braden - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 09:35 AM EDT (#148930) #

For those of us who have been slightly concerned about Halladay's K/9 rate, the Doc himself addresses the issue in today's Star:

"In past years, the first two or three pitches I'd maybe try to make perfect,'' he added. "Where now, I try to hit my spot but do it on the plate to get those quick outs.''

Good enough for me. The one thing I will note, however, is that when Doc does go deep in a count, batters seem to be fouling off more two-strike pitches than in years past. I noticed it quite a few times in his last start and a couple more last night. But, whatever. He's clearly doing just fine.

Maldoff - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 09:35 AM EDT (#148931) #

I have to say I love the new Halladay. It shows how much of a team player he is (which is tough for a pitcher) in that he has forgone his strikeout totals in favour of more groundball outs in order to be able to pitch deeper into games. I think that really shows why he is truly one of the class acts in the game.

Flex - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 09:48 AM EDT (#148933) #

I absolutely agree. Halladay is all about results, not flashy personal stats. Go deep, save the bullpen, show the way. He intends to be here a long time. He really has taken all the science of the game to heart. As Koufax said, "I became a better pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it."

Go Doc Go.

Pistol - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 10:24 AM EDT (#148940) #

Here's the thing.....Doc's not really more efficient now and he's not getting more groundballs. He's just striking out fewer hitters. Look at the last 5 years (excluding 2004 when he had shoulder problems which I think throw those numbers off):

SEASON	#P/PA	#P/IP	K/9	K/BB	GB/FB	OPS
2002	3.52	14.6	6.32	2.71	2.75	0.627
2003	3.39	13.6	6.90	6.38	2.70	0.664
2005	3.46	13.5	6.86	6.00	2.60	0.587
2006	3.70	13.1	4.36	4.18	2.33	0.670

I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.

Mike Green - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 10:40 AM EDT (#148941) #

Halladay has been facing weaker opposition in 2006 than usual. That combined with the increased offensive support may have resulted in a changed pitching pattern, with Halladay trying for the ball in play rather than the strikeout even late in the count. The dynamics change when a pitcher has a lead of several runs in the middle innings, and this has happened more often to Halladay this season than in past years. Yesterday's game would be an example.

One of the quirks of the scheduling and the early-season rotation involved Halladay facing weaker opposition than Towers. That is obviously not ideal.

Chuck - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 11:10 AM EDT (#148945) #

I'm just throwing this out there, I don't pretend to know. Is Halladay really "not trying for strikeouts"? Is there a discernibly different pitching strategy that he is now employing?

I'm wondering, not stating, just wondering, if the lower K rate has resulted in an after-the-fact rationalization ("it's lower because I'm doing something to make it lower"), and if there isn't something else going on, whereby Halladay is now less capable of striking batters out, for whatever reason (the forearm problems of earlier in the year?).

My subjective impression is that Halladay has not entirely been himself this season, despite the terrific results. And perhaps this goes to Mike's point about the weaker opposition he has been facing. Maybe this year's Halladay is a lesser version (as the K rate might suggest) but this has been masked thus far.

Maldoff - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 11:30 AM EDT (#148948) #

Chuck, I definately agree with your arguement, but I'm trying to be on the optomistic side! Here's some quotes of Roy's from this morning's Toronto Star:

"I think it's just recognizing the importance of being aggressive,'' Halladay said of how he's changed since winning baseball's ultimate pitching prize. "Especially in a game like that. I'm trying to get outs as fast as I can and get us back in the dugout.''

Halladay said he tries to "use his fielders'' as much as possible. He'll go for the odd strikeout — he recorded three last night — when needed, but otherwise: "I think I'm just not nibbling as much, to be honest with you.

"In past years, the first two or three pitches I'd maybe try to make perfect,'' he added. "Where now, I try to hit my spot but do it on the plate to get those quick outs.''

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150235413475&call_pageid=968867503640&col=970081593064&t=TS_Home

braden - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 11:40 AM EDT (#148950) #

"...whereby Halladay is now less capable of striking batters out, for whatever reason..."

This plays into my feeling, admittedly without any statistical analysis, that Halladay has had trouble putting batters away, by means of a strikeout, when he's ahead in the count. I've tried paying close attention and it just seems as though countless times he'll have an 0-2 or 1-2 count on a batter and need three of four more pitches before he induces a groundout. In years past, it would seem that he's striking those batters out.

Magpie - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 12:13 PM EDT (#148953) #

Doc used to throw his fastball consistently around 94 mph. I had been noticing over the last few weeks that his velocity was down a bit - he was generally hitting 91-92. It worried me a little.

Last night was very different. His fastball was generally around 88-89, with the occasional gust to 90 or 91. I noticed him hitting 92 exactly once all night (to Kevin Millar.)

And then with two out in the ninth, and two strikes to Corey Patterson, he suddenly zipped one in there at 94.

Didn't get the out, but it took a load off my mind...

Magpie - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 12:17 PM EDT (#148954) #

And while it's true that ground balls are more democratic, there are two reasons we like strikeouts, fascist though they may be: 1) it takes pressure off the defense, having to get 18 outs instead of 22 or 23; 2) it's one of the more reliable indicators of a pitcher's success going forward.

The two elements are obviously inter-related. Lots of have pitchers have had one good season striking out fewer than four batters per nine innings. But it's been about 50 years since anyone actually made a career out of it.

DepecheJay - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 12:25 PM EDT (#148956) #

This has been the topic of discussion for MANY a game chat, and here's what I think is happening.

Quite simply, Doc's curveball has been off this year. He used to use that thing on the first pitch of AB's, and he used to snap it in there with 2 strikes UP HIGH so that it would freeze the hitter and land perfectly in the strikezone. Watch some of Doc's games and you'll notice that he's not featuring it at all this year. I counted 3 curves last night, one of them with 2 strikes to get Markakis swinging at a pitch in the dirt.

In his other starts, I haven't noticed that the classic 12-6 Doc curve may be getting dumped completely from his repetoire. During the start AT Baltimore, he didn't throw a 12-6 curve at all. Instead, he was throwing more of an 11-4 curve with lots of sideways break on it. I still don't know why this is happening.

Even Doc of last year would use the 12-6 curve a lot. That was not only his putaway pitch, but that was also his get ahead of the hitter pitch. It's very rare that a player just completely pockets a pitch. Instead, Doc is featuring the sinker, 2 seamer and cutter more, with the obvious 4 seamer. I'd be interested to know why Halladay/Arnsburg have completely ditched the curve, but here's what I think about Roy's approach, he's definitely doing this intentionally. Doc is extremely predictable at this point. If you notice, he goes 2 seamer and sinker down and in and down and away to lefties and he throws that cutter constantly in on the left handed hitters as well as in on the righties. With his great control, what this is doing is giving hitters seemingly enticing pitches to hit but with Halladay's natural movement the ball hits the handle of the bat or the end of the bat and results in weak grounders or popups. I think it was one of the Devil Rays hitters who said it was like hitting a cynder block with a bat.

So while you may be concerned with the lack of K's, I really don't think it's that big of a deal. The guy is still getting the job done and he can still go deep in games, which is massive with how awful the bullpen is this year. Any concerns over the forearm don't make sense to me, seeing as how he pitched last year amazingly before the broken leg and was even throwing the curve a ton. In final, Doc is still one of the top 3 pitchers in the game, #1 in my book, and is an absolute gamer. This team would be NOTHING without him.

Chuck - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 12:33 PM EDT (#148960) #

Lots of have pitchers have had one good season striking out fewer than four batters per nine innings. But it's been about 50 years since anyone actually made a career out of it.

Forgetting about Kirk Rueter? He may not be headed to Cooperstown, but he won 130 games with a career K/9 of 3.8.

Dave Till - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#148964) #

99 times out of 100, I'd be worrying about a low K rate. But I think Halladay is the exception.

Good hitters normally try to work the count in their favour and then zone down: look for a particular pitch in a particular zone. If they get that pitch, they hit it. But Halladay throws strikes, and the strikes are all tough to hit. He doesn't make many mistakes. So the batters are going up there swinging, because they know that it's not going to get any easier for them. The result: a ground out on the second pitch, over and over again.

A high strikeout total is the most common method of measuring pitcher dominance, but it's not the only one. Other effective measurements are pitches per inning and earned run average - and Doc is way up there in both categories. How many other pitchers regularly only need 100 pitches to get through nine innings?

Most pitchers with low K rates are nibblers: they have to hit spots to be effective, and tend to give up a large number of hits per inning. But Doc challenges everybody, relying on his ball's movement to hit his spots.

Ron - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 01:13 PM EDT (#148967) #

Boy we are spoiled.

I don't buy the reason Doc doesn't have as many K's is because he's trying to get quicker outs this season. The stats show he's being really economical with pitchers per inning this season, but he was the same when he was missing a lot of bats.

Johan Santana is living proof you can K a lot of batters while maintaining a low pitch count. I believe at one point last night, he had over 10K's with around 80 pitches thrown.

Perhaps Doc is simply no longer in his prime and is declining. Of course a declining Doc is still better than 98% of the pitchers out there. Either way I'm not going to loss any sleep over it but it is interesting to keep an eye on it.

Last nights Twins/Sox game was a dandy. I have no idea why Morneau tried to stretch a single into a double late in the game. That's my candidate for best game of the season so far. I love watching HR's but I also love watching a pitching showdown.

js_magloire - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 01:27 PM EDT (#148969) #

I am in the camp that Halladay's fastball is looking a little slower, and he's using his curve ball less often, and less effectively. I.e: he's sometimes missing that curve on the edge of the plate that usually gets the third strike called, where he used to get that a lot. But Riccardi earlier in the year said his forearm strain was a result of throwing too many cut fastballs, so if anything, why would he slow down on ihs curve. I was also under the impression last year that his curve was his best pitch. I don't think he's in decline at all though, he's only 29. He will still be in his prime for a few years to come, and this could just be a phase, or less than that, just reading too much into something.

Chuck - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 01:53 PM EDT (#148972) #

Most pitchers with low K rates are nibblers: they have to hit spots to be effective, and tend to give up a large number of hits per inning. But Doc challenges everybody, relying on his ball's movement to hit his spots.

Dave, I run the risk of misrepresenting the findings of Voros McCracken and others with respect to DIPS (and I'm just now donning my asbestos y-fronts in anticipation of forthcoming rejoinders), but the premise, as I understand it, is that when it comes to BAPIP, all pitchers are generally created equal.

That is to say, any differences in BAPIP are attributable to caliber of defense and random chance.

Thus, it could be argued that Halladay is no different, in this regard, than the teeming masses. If he's striking out fewer batters, he's putting more balls in play. More balls in play means more hits allowed. While his stats, thus far, don't bear this out, this may be a path he's heading down.

Unless all pitchers are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Chuck - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#148973) #

Any by BAPIP I mean BABIP.

rtcaino - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 02:03 PM EDT (#148974) #

I think it also depends on what percentage of balls in play are ground balls, line drives, fly balls and pop ups. It stands to reason that a pitcher who gives up all ground balls should have a lower BABIP than one who gives up all line drives.

Of course I'm sure someone will offer a better response shortly!

Magpie - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 02:19 PM EDT (#148977) #

Forgetting about Kirk Rueter?

I've been doing my best...

But even Reuter. Through 1999, his career K/9 was actually 4.71. His record was 70-39.

Over the next three seasons, his K/9 dipped below 4.0 - and he actually got away with it, going 39-29, 3.86 with good ERAs. (His 2002 numbers are one of the great Mysteries of the Modern Age.) At this point (through 2002), his career marks were 109-68 and his career K/9 was 4.25

But over the next three years, he started striking out even fewer batters - less than 3.0 per nine innings - and that didn't work too well...

greenfrog - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#148979) #

I notice that Millar didn't think Halladay has become more hittable, or passed his prime:

"When he's on, he's the toughest in the big leagues. Period," Millar said. "If he's got command of that sinker [and] command of that cutter, you're in trouble."

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20060613&content_id=1503425&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

Of course, there is some slight ambiguity here: "when he's on...". But Millar is still dishing out high praise. He's been around for a while, and is placing Roy above the likes of Santana, Schilling, Mussina, Contreras, Harden...and that's just the AL.

To me, Halladay has looked slightly less dominating this year, but he remains highly effective (8-1, 2.75 ERA, 0.99 WHIP. His opponents' OPS is .670, which is actually below his career OPS against of .686. These are superb numbers).

Mike T - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#148980) #

One thing I've noticed the past 3-6 starts from Halladay is that I've seen a lot of "loud" outs. Hard hit liners, but right at fielders almost all the time. Last night for example, I must have seen 6 hard hit liners to the OF, Reed and Vernon made some nice catches. At times I wonder is he still hurting? and pitching through it still, hoping it fades away? I hope he's ok and not hurting. He's not looking the same as he did earlier in the season. Seeing him hit 94-95 in the 9th inning was a good sign, I guess... :s

Mike Green - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#148981) #

In general terms, for most pitchers over the long haul, BABIP is a function of context, defensive support and a small degree of chance. There are some pitchers who consistently have a low BABIP over a period of many years. Nolan Ryan would be a classic example.

Returning to Halladay, the ball in play data actually adds to the worry over his K rate. His line drive rate has been increasing (and has been above league average), while his DER (essentially the inverse of BABIP) is also increasing to significantly above average. He is not likely to be able to sustain that over a season. My hope is that as the season wears on, Halladay will return to the punchout as a regular weapon in his arsenal.

Fawaz - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 02:36 PM EDT (#148984) #

I agree that a lot of his outs have been hard hit (I love this outfield defence! Could Doc be brilliant enough to say, "Hit it in the air if you want, I've got a Gold Glover, a future Gold Glover and diving fool out there"? Probably not...), but with respect to Halladay's BABIP regressing to mere mortal status, I wouldn't hold my breath on it. When hitters put it on the ground against him the ball moves so feebly the middle infielders have to be more worried about moving in for it rather than laterally. These aren't balls that run the risk of sneaking through.

I thought Halladay was lucky last night (VW would have been my star of the game), but frankly, I'm not ready to dismiss the idea that he's in complete control of what he's doing until he gets battered around a bit (heaven forbid). At this point he seems to just be putting the onus on the hitters to make him adjust.

Mike Green - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#148986) #

Maybe I wasn't clear. Halladay's BABIP was normal in 2004 and 2005; it has been abnormally low in 2006 despite a much higher line drive rate. It's really hard to say that the ground balls of 2006 have been hit less well than those of 2004 and 2005, although perhaps a more sophisticated analysis would catch it.

Fawaz - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 02:52 PM EDT (#148989) #

Actually, I was unclear in what I was responding to. I was offering an opinion on Chuck's comment that Halladay might be in trouble if BABIP treats all pitchers similarly.

I had pointed out Halladay's increased LD% in a previous thread, so it's certainly a point of concern. I'm just going to ignore it : )

HollywoodHartman - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 03:20 PM EDT (#148992) #

As long as he is in the top 2 in AL ERA, I'm not complaining.

jjdynomite - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 03:51 PM EDT (#148994) #

Nice article from old friend Keith Law on whether it's a good idea to pick up Russ Ortiz -- as we're worrying about Doc, Ortiz's K rate is 8.34. Of course, his K/BB rate is 0.96, a big "improvement" over last year's 0.71. It appears he has hit the Alfonzo Age 32 wall. I would prefer Towers after a couple more AAA starts, whose salary is also a sunk cost, mind you.

Chuck - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 04:00 PM EDT (#148996) #

As long as he is in the top 2 in AL ERA, I'm not complaining.

The discussion isn't centered around whether or not Halladay has been effective despite his low K rate. Clearly he has. The question is, what does his K rate portend? Does he have an innate ability to yield a better than average BABIP, or will he eventually start paying for all those extra balls in play?

slitheringslider - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 04:16 PM EDT (#148998) #

It seems like in the past few games that he has pitched, his sinker does not have the usual downward bite, it seems a lot flatter. At the beginning of the year, he was inducing something ridiculous like 18 groundouts a game. But in the past couple games, he is making a lot more outs in the air. In addition to his seemingly flattening sinker, his usual plus curveball now only seems average, if even that. In the past, Doc can induce a lot of swing and misses just by throwing that curve in the strikezone, but I don't remember the last time that happened. I only time people swing and misses in anything is when the curve is in the dirt. Also, his curveball use to freeze a lot of people, but never happens anymore. Doc seems to rely more on his sinker/cutter than in the past. He is getting great results, but nonetheless, his lack of strikeouts do concern me.

Willy - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 04:40 PM EDT (#149002) #

The question is, what does his K rate portend?

Reading the Box over the last couple of years has confirmed me in the view that baseball fans are WORRIERS. Big time. We spend so much of our time and energy conjecturing and speculating about the future, and agonizing/ second-guessing about the past. Neither of which we can do the slightest thing about. Not much simple enjoyment and acceptance of the present. Always mixing memory and desire (to quote T.S. Eliot). Always. Part of the game's appeal, I suppose. So keep taking your meds, people.

zeppelinkm - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 04:56 PM EDT (#149003) #

One thing I noticed, that seems to support Halladay's statements, and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong because i'm going from memory, but I am quite certain that at least 2 of his 3 K's last night left runners stranded in scoring position and all of them left runners on base, though maybe not all with 2 outs. Although, to be fair, one of his K's was the #9 hitter.

I have noticed that batters have been lacing a lot of balls right to people, and it does make me nervous. But I love Roy.

One thing, Halladay might just be taking an abnormally long time to be getting going and is still working up to the Halladay dominance we all want to see. He only played till the all star break last year, and this year he did suffer a minor injury early on that would have slowed down his arm strengthening up. Even in his Cy Young year, Halladay was 7-7 at one point wasn't he? THEN, he strung off his streak of 15 winning decisions (not consecutive). What would be interesting to see is what his K rate was like for those first 15 or 16 starts. It would be neat to see if it was comparable to what it is now, and the difference in Halladay being 8-1 now as opposed to 7-7 attributed to him being a better all around pitcher. Of course.. if his K rate was stellar during that stretch of 7-7.. *shrugs*.. I think Halladay is like a diesel engine though, it just takes a while to get going, but once it does, it just goes and goes.

And by goes I mean dominates.

Dave Till - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 05:09 PM EDT (#149004) #

According to my copy of Baseball Between The Numbers, the fate of a batted ball is 44% luck, 28% pitching, 17% defense, and 11% park effects. I don't think Halladay's success is due entirely to luck.

Halladay has given up his share of home runs, by the way: he surrendered 26 in his Cy Young year. His current total of 9 allowed is in line with his numbers in the previous three years.

Chuck - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 05:17 PM EDT (#149005) #

Dave, does that fate include homeruns? I ask because DIPS obviously ignores homeruns, which are highly pitcher-dependent, of course.

Bruce Wrigley - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 05:51 PM EDT (#149008) #

keep taking your meds, people

Make mine a double, on the rocks!

Bruce Wrigley - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 06:03 PM EDT (#149009) #

It seems like in the past few games that he has pitched, his sinker does not have the usual downward bite

It hasn't - agreed. When Doc went on the DL with the forearm injury, it was partially because he was having problems throwing the cut fastball - he'd been working on improvements to his grip and release of the cutter and I guess he overworked the little muscles inside the forearm that he uses when releasing that pitch. He's been throwing the fastball/curveball combination mostly since he came back; he's none the worse for wear so far but he needs that pitch to dominate.

Willy - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 06:16 PM EDT (#149010) #

I use that medicine myself, Bruce. My comment wasn't meant to be 'snarky'--as I'm sometimes accused of being. It interests me why exactly we do enjoy and follow baseball so assiduously. The are probably hundreds of reasons, but anxiety and worry and speculation are among them surely? For myself, I think that one of the primary appeals of the game is aesthetic. Its formal beauty--the wealth of rules, both written down and unwritten (the latter meant to be broken for our enjoyment). I think of Robert Frost's comment about writing free verse: "I'd as soon play tennis with the net down."

Something to think about before the game starts.

Mike D - Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 08:49 PM EDT (#149014) #

According to my copy of Baseball Between The Numbers, the fate of a batted ball is 44% luck, 28% pitching, 17% defense, and 11% park effects. I don't think Halladay's success is due entirely to luck.

Nor do I, Dave. To come to a conclusion like BBTN did with this sort of precision, an author or authors would have to be (a) unquestionably smart and sophisticated, and (b) grossly arrogant. Hey, whaddya know! It's the gang from Baseball Prospectus!

Even assuming this breakdown to be true in the aggregate, I don't see why it's always therefore assumed to be true in every case such that broken-bat grounders to second are always more likely to be due to the equivalent of flipping a coin than to the movement on a cutter deliberately thrown in the strike zone.

By way of tangent, a brief hypothetical: Imagine that a study is performed to evaluate the effects of cold weather on a pitcher. The group conducting the study take a large sample of pitchers and compare their career numbers to their cold-weather numbers. The results are as follows: A small number of pitchers pitch better in the cold; most pitch about the same; and a small number of pitchers pitch worse.

If the conclusion is "generally, cold weather doesn't favour the pitcher," fine. But many analytical baseball types would describe the study as "proving cold weather doesn't matter to a pitcher." My point is, isn't it possible that some pitchers actually are especially comfortable or uncomfortable in the cold? Why should we always assume that all pitchers will eventually pitch to their career-average level in the cold, and that it must be "luck" when they don't?

All that being said, I share many of the concerns with Halladay here. The line drive rate is worrisome, and the utter absence of the 12-to-6 curveball is puzzling. But I kind of like Halladay's comments that it's a result of a conscious, advertent strategy. Either it is, and it seems to be working OK, or it isn't, but he's wisely not admitting to any vulnerability that opponents can attack.

And yes, I'm inherently suspicious of any attempt to quantify "luck" or attribute results to it. Especially since "luck" has essentially been redefined in the baseball analyst community as "anything rigid sabermetricians did not predict."

Blue Jays 7, Orioles 1 | 44 comments | Create New Account

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