So much for using Ryan in one innings saves... That strategy lasted oh, about 8 days !

Still, we're still just about hanging in there and I guess a loss last night would've been painful. I can see why Gibbon's stuck to his stud pitchers.

Thought I'd post this on a slow day:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060810/1009001.asp?tbd1009001.asp

It's not a baseball article, but a hockey story.  It's a report in the Buffalo News about how the Sabres have changed their emphasis in scouting to be more heavily on video than "in-person" scouting.  Although not the same as the Blue Jays' recent past, some parallels can be drawn, particularly the skepticism held by the rest of the league and old-time scouts toward unconventional methods of player personnel management and the inevitable high turnover rate in the Sabres' scouting department.  I thought it was an interesting read.

I just read Baker's Hit and Run column. I agree with his assessment that Gibbons has overused his relief corps.

But I don't get this:

But the view from the front of the class — the desk with the apple for the teacher on it — apparently is that us media types should have placed more Jays players in our crosshairs as 2002 morphed into 2003 and 2004 and so on. It's an annoying whisper that usually crops up this time of year and whispers can't always be wrong so I'll now do my best to make up for our media's collective past oversights.

What the heck is he talking about?

I'm not sure there's many similarities to the Jays - they're still pretty conventional in their scouting.  The big difference when JP took over is that he trimmed down the scouting department and the drafts have had more of a college orientation.  They may do some more statistical analysis than other teams, but it's certainly not a major part of it.  They still have area and regional scouts all over the draft territory that they rely on.

The baseball scouting concerns that came up from Moneyball were the performance analysis / scouting balance.  In this case it's not a matter of that, but rather HOW a team scouts players.  With video you could see a lot more players in a much shorter time period.  Whether something is lost scouting someone on video rather than scouting someone in person is the question, and apparently the Sabres are banking on the difference being minimal, and less than the gains they think they can get with efficiencies.

I'm sure as time goes on baseball teams will look more and more at video - mostly because it'll be available more than it has been in the past.  For the most part JP's only involved with the first round.  But if an intern can whittle down a pitcher's game into a 5 minute block on a DVD maybe JP or Jon Lalonde or Tony Lacava get a chance to see more players, or more of a particular player, than they otherwise would.

I just read Baker's Hit and Run column. I agree with his assessment that Gibbons has overused his relief corps.

But I don't get this:

But the view from the front of the class — the desk with the apple for the teacher on it — apparently is that us media types should have placed more Jays players in our crosshairs ...

What the heck is he talking about?

It's part of what seems to be a war between Jeff Blair of the Globe and Baker & Griffin in the Star. In Monday's Blair column (print edition), he suggested that the Jays' problems this year are because of the starting pitching. Not because of bullpen management by Gibbons "as suggested by the back of the class".  I didn't know what (or who) he meant until I read Baker's take on who's sitting at the "front of the class". Teacher's Pet Blair I assume. 

Earlier this year after Blair suggested the Jays would trade Hillenbrand before the end of the year, Baker called the idea idiotic (or something like that). Of course, that was long before the blowup.  Griffin also tagged Blair as the only reporter not asking tough questions.

So, maybe there will be some off-field entertainment to watch. Too bad Blair's blog is gone for 10 days.

"us media types should have placed more Jay players in our crosshairs as 2002 morphed into 2003 and 2004"

Sorry, that is not a language I understand.  Espanol, por favor?  Francais, s'il vous plait?  Esperanto, please-o?
Mind you, I am not sure that I want to know, seeing as it appears to be just a petty dispute.

We usually review the performances of the players, the manager and the GM at the end of the season.  It's pretty much a sure thing that not all of them will be getting glowing reviews.  In the meanwhile, it's August and the Jays are on the fringes of a wild card race.

did JP cut the number of scouting personnel when he fired/hired all those scouts?

I don't actually know, but I can tell you this.

The 2001 Media Guide lists by name 38 Scouting Supervisors working the US amateur ranks, and another 35 US Area Scouts. It lists 11 scouts and another 21 associate scouts working Canada. It lists 10 International Scouts and another 9 scouts assigned specifically to Latin America. That's 124 bodies.

The 2005 Media Guide (Liam's got my copy of the 2006 Guide!) lists 14 Area Scouts covering the US amateur ranks; 4 scouts and 2 associate scouts covering Canada; and 7 International Scouts (5 of whom are based in Latin America.). That's 27 bodies.

I have no idea if this gives an accurate picture of how the operation has changed.

It was pretty obvious that the:

a) Glaus for Hudson & Batista
b) Overbay for Bush & Gross
c) the Koskie dump while still paying him (and keeping this secret)

were all bad moves when they were done.

It wasn't obvious to me then, and it isn't obvious to me now. I like Glaus a whole lot more than you do, obviously. I think calling his defense "horrible" is just a wee bit excessive.  I think "average" would be more accurate, at least as far as his range goes. And I continue to think Glaus is very much above-average at starting the DP. And there is considerably more to his offense than HR and RBI - his OBP is .372 and he leads the team, by a comfortable margin, in runs scored. (On the other hand, I'm not inclined to give Glaus much credit for Vernon Wells' performance. I can see the argument that a free-swinger like Wells is precisely the type of hitter who needs a power threat behind him. But I'm not buying it. Wells had Delgado hitting behind him for a number of years, not just 2003.) 

Hudson's defense was, and presumably remains, magnificent. But for the most part, defense at second base hasn't been one of the team's problems. The evidence of mine own eyes, and what I can gleam from the numbers, tells me that Aaron Hill has been a good defender at second base. He hasn't been Hudson, but hell - Hudson wasn't Hudson in his first full season either. I think he's been...pretty good. Above average. Despite being jerked around in mid-season, as this organization is so fond of doing.

As a hitter, Glaus is doing nothing that he hasn't done before. That's obviously not true of Hudson, but it's not at all clear to me how much should be attributed to Hudson taking a step forward, Hudson having a prolonged hot streak, or Hudson moving to the NL West. I'm not sure how likely it is that Hudson would have rung up similar numbers in the AL East.

So I don't think it was a bad trade, although sure - both Hudson and Batista would be useful to have on the team right now. (Not that the Blue Jays would actually use Batista in the swing man job that he seems so obviously best suited for. Nobody wants to actually be a swing man, which makes it tough to put a Proven Veteran into the role.)

What I think went seriously wrong is Russ Adams. I expected Adams to play the way he did in mid-summer last year, when he looked to me like the Leadoff Man of the Future ( I figured he simply ran into a rookie wall in September.)  Instead, he started struggling on defense, it spread to his bat, and then the organization had one of its typical "Forget-the-Plan, Let's-Try-This Instead" moments. (Don't get me started on that, it's what bothers me much, much more than any single move.)

As for the Milwaukee trade... Gross is a fourth outfielder there, he'd be the fifth outfielder here (and that's assuming Hinske is still an infielder.) He's not really a prospect anymore - he's only ten months younger than Vernon Wells. I'm happy he's found a job, and I'm happier still that Rios wasn't the outfielder that got thrown in to the Bush-Overbay trade. I do like Dave Bush a lot, I wish he was still here, but you got to give up something to get something and I also like having Overbay (and I like it much more now that Hillenbrand is gone.) The lineup rather badly needed a LH bat. Especially after...

The Koskie dump.  I actually don't mind the dump. I just don't like counting on players who get hurt year after year after. On the other hand, I sure don't like him sucking up enough money to pay a starting pitcher or two.

I'm nitpicking, right?

Re: modeling the Jays like the Tigers.

What I don't get is how the Tigers are the best team in baseball, and how much is this Dombrowski's intelligent modeling, or pure dumb luck. Like, how are these guys so good? Pitching and defence? I looked at the last few years and there seems to be a correlation between the best ERA in baseball coupled with a top 10 offence (Tigers) = the best team. Let's see what Dave did at the beginning of this season. How is the money ($82 mil) being allocated?

Justin Verlander is the front runner for the AL Cy Young now, thats certainly a great number 2 pick. Joel Zumaya has broken out too and looked amazing. Curtis Granderson has looked okay.

-Kenny Rogers: 8 mil. above average signing.
-Mags: $16 mil
-I-Rod: $10 mil
-Todd Jones: 6 mil. meh.
-Dmitrit Young: 8 mil.
-Carlos Guillen: 5mil.


And then there's guys like Bonderman, Nate Robertson, (Mike Maroth), Marcus Thames, etc. Who are breaking out or fluking.

Perhaps its because they have a case of the White Sox disease: everything goes right at the same time with everyone peaking and relative health.

The Tigers' infield defence has been superb.  Inge, Guillen, Polanco, Shelton and Rodriguez are the Electric Company to the young arms' Juice.  I had missed Pudge's defensive resurgence.  In 81 games, opponents have attempted to steal 24 bases and been caught 15 times.  That'll discourage the hit and run.

The development of Verlander, Zumaya and Granderson, and the building of a solid infield defence have been, in my view, the keys to the Tiger season.  These things are interconnected.  A young pitcher coming up with good stuff, into a park which will give him an edge and not surrender too many longballs with an infield defence which will turn ground balls into outs at a very good rate and a catcher who will severely discourage the stolen base and even the hit and run, should brim with confidence. 

Defense is pretty much a constant.  Teams that have it, have it for every game assuming players are healthy.

I don't see why this is much more true of defense than it is of offense. The ability to perform may be a constant, but the performance itself certainly isn't. Not just from game to game but from year to year. Players have slumps and hot streaks on defense, just as they do in the batter's box.

Hell, Derek Jeter's offense has probably been more consistent and predictable than his defense...