Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
As a rule, you want to have more Runs up there on the scoreboard than Errors. When you have it the other way round... well, it seldom works.


At least the Jays weren't the only team taking this approach last night. Washington scored zero runs against Tim Hudson and the Braves, while making a couple of errors. And the Cubs, bless them, made three errors against Houston; the two runs they finally got in the bottom of the ninth weren't enough to get them off the hook.

I was worried about how the ten day layoff would affect Josh Towers' command, which is what his entire game is based on. As it turned out, his command was just fine. I thought he ran out of gas after about 70 pitches, and the layoff may have contributed to that; on the other hand, it may have been just the regular wear that comes from having to work out of the jams your shoddy defense has ... anyway, he'll be fine. I have no worries whatsoever on that score. I'm more worried about Chacin and Ohka than Towers.

Rawlings, the people who make the Gold Glove, are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Gold Glove awards by collecting fan votes for the All-Time Gold Glove team. The results of the first batch of voting has just been announced, and the fans are doing OK if you ask me. It wasn't the fans who put Derek Jeter on the ballot, and it's the fans who have cast their votes for other shortstops.

Presumably, you would have to have won a Gold Glove at some time or another to even be considered. They didn't always just grab the guys with most Gold Gloves at each position and stick them on the ballot, but that does seem to have been a common procedure..

Catcher - Johnny Bench has a big 2-1 lead over Ivan Rodriguez. I am becoming more and more convinced that there's probably very, very little to choose from between these two. I might go with Bench because he did it first; he more or less pointed the direction to a new way to play the position. Also on the ballot are Bill Freehan, Bob Boone, and Jim Sundberg. These are the only five catchers to win at least five Gold Gloves, as it happens.

First Base - Keith Hernandez is ahead of Don Mattingly. It's very close. It shouldn't be remotely close - Mattingly was awfully good, but Hernandez was in a class all by himself, the best I have ever seen by a mile. He was amazing. Also in the running: Wes Parker, Vic Power, Bill White, and J.T. Snow. The original Boomer, George Scott, winner of eight Gold Gloves, has been forgotten. And frankly, his defense was overrated.

Second Base - Joe Morgan is ahead in a close four way race with Ryne Sandberg, Roberto Alomar, and Bill Mazeroski. Morgan, Sandberg, and Alomar were all very good indeed, but no matter. As everyone knows, Mazeroski was better than anyone - Maz didn't turn the double play, the baseball was somehow seamlessly redirected to first base, as if no human intervention had even been required. I don't know how else to describe it. I rather think Frank White was better than the other guys as well - no one else understood better than White how to play infield on artificial turf. White's also on the ballot, along with Bobby Richardson. These six players are the only second basemen with five Gold Gloves.

Shortstop - In a battle of the Ozzies, it's Smith over Vizquel by a landslide. Which is as it should be, although the runner up should be either Cal Ripken or Luis Aparicio. Davey Concepcion and Mark Belanger are also listed, which is certainly fine by me. Ripken isn't even on the ballot, probably because he was much too tall to be a shortstop. The other five players are the only shortstops to win five Gold Gloves. They're all on the ballot, and so is... ahem... Derek Jeter. Who's not terrible, but obviously doesn't belong in this group, even if he did win three times. So did Roy McMillan and Rey Ordonez, who were far, far better shortstops. And hey - what about Tony Fernandez and Alan Trammell (four Gold Gloves apiece)?.

Third Base - Brooks Robinson has a big lead over Mike Schmidt. Well, Schmidt was a great defender, but Brooks was a little better. Of course, Graig Nettles at his best might have been better than either of them, but he's not even on the ballot. We can't have everything, and the other candidates - Buddy Bell, Ken Boyer, Eric Chavez, and Scott Rolen - are certainly worthy. Boyer, who won five Gold Gloves, bumps aside Robin Ventura (who won six). Everyone else went six or more.

You notice that Brooks Robinson and Keith Hernandez - even if you don't believe they were the greatest defenders ever at their positions, you'll certainly concede that they're part of the discussion - had pretty well no foot speed whatsoever. Zilch. They had team mates who would lap them if they ran around the bases twice. Hernandez ran OK in his youth, when was with the Cardinals. But by the time he turned 30 and came to New York, it was all gone. And he was a better defensive player than ever.

Outfield - Willie Mays has more votes than anyone, and really... why on earth wouldn't he? There's plenty of film of the man playing, there are still many among us with living memories of watching him play. No one like him. And Roberto Clemente has more votes than anyone except Willie and Brooks, and that's OK too. No one in the last thirty years has played right field like Roberto. Mays and Clemente each won 12 Gold Gloves, more than any other outfielder. However, the next highest vote getter among the outfielders is Ken Griffey, which brings us to that goofy inability of the Gold Gloves to notice that outfield is three different positions, not one repeated three times. There are 11 centre fielders listed (Mays, Blair, Dawson, Edmunds, Flood, Griffey, Hunter, Jones, Maddox, Puckett, White); there are 6 right fielders listed (Clemente, Evans, Kaline, Suzuki, Walker, Winfield). But there is only one left-fielder on the ballot - Carl Yastrzemski. Happily, Yaz was as good a left fielder as you could want to see - Joe Rudi and Barry Bonds are the only other left fielders to get any respect in the Gold Glove voting. (And there's no doubt in my mind that Mike Cameron and Gary Pettis were far better centre fielders than Griffey or Puckett.)

Pitcher - Only three men are listed - Maddux, Kaat, and Gibson - and Maddux is winning. Gibson was an amazing athlete, and it's remarkable that he was able to field his position at all (if you've ever seen footage of him delivering a pitch, you'll know what I mean.) The best defender from the pitcher's mound I ever saw was actually Bob File of the Blue Jays, but alas... you have to be able to stay healthy and pitch a few years to have a shot.

11 April 2007: (R < E) = $%*#^@ | 63 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mike Green - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 09:19 AM EDT (#165530) #
Well, actually, Jesse Barfield, at his peak, was quite a bit better defensively than Roberto Clemente.  Comparable range and a significantly better arm.  John Walsh did a thorough job using Retrosheet files on the arm issue in the THT Annual.  Jesse gunned down way more and had a slightly better hold rate. It's likely that the Barfield of 83-86 had the highest defensive peak of a right-fielder ever... But this view is heretical, I know, and people have been burned at the stake for less.

 




jeff mcl - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 09:20 AM EDT (#165531) #
That was a very Towers-y outing last night.  His defenders are going to say that the d wasn't there behind him; fine.  Add a walk or two to that line, however, and KC would've easily put a couple more runs on the board.   Not to mention that he left after giving up 6 to probably the worst lineup in the AL.  Alex Gordon owes Towers a fruit basket for helping him out of that mini-slump.

You hate to cheer for failure, but being a Leafs fan in the John Ferguson Jr. era can turn even the most honest fan to the dark side.  How many more subpar outings before Janssen takes Towers' rotation spot?  I would hope not more than a handful.  Early May?

Dave Till - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 09:37 AM EDT (#165534) #
I thought that Towers did just fine. Three of his runs were unearned. One was on a triple that was just out of Matt Stairs' reach; Reed Johnson would have had it easily. And another was after two bloop singles.

Towers was getting strikeouts, which meant that his stuff was good enough.

jsut - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 09:38 AM EDT (#165535) #
His defenders are going to say that the d wasn't there behind him; fine.

3 errors while Towers was pitching.  How could anyone say anything other than that his D wasn't behind him.  The guy that pitched last night was not Josh Towers of 2006.  It was much closer to Tower 2005 than 2006, he just had the worst defense the Jays have provided any pitcher all year.
Thomas - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 09:49 AM EDT (#165537) #

His defenders are going to say that the d wasn't there behind him; fine.

And they're going to be absolutely right. Yesterday was much more an indication of how far Josh has come as opposed to how far he's fallen. He has a small margin for error and when the defence plays atrociously, both infield and outfield, Towers is going to have a difficulty. There was three errors and another three hits should have been outs with Sparky out there and if Rios plays the ball competently. Gibbons deserves much of the credit for that loss. Stairs is going to have the play the field sometimes, but it should only be with Doc or AJ starting and it should never be with Towers on the mound. With Doc and AJ getting strikeouts and grounders Stairs' defensive shortcomings don't matter. They do when Towers relies on his defence.

Ryan Day - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 09:55 AM EDT (#165538) #

Add a walk or two to that line, however, and KC would've easily put a couple more runs on the board.

 Well, yeah. But if Josh Towers is walking people - like he did last year - then you know he's toast. If he starts walking 3 batters a game, I'll be completely in favour of yanking him from the rotation ASAP.

But he didn't walk anyone, and he struck out 6. That's pretty good - at least good enough for a second start. If we're going to axe people on one start, we'll kiss Ohka goodbye first.

 Interestingly, Shaun Marcum is second on the team with 10 strikeouts, in just 6.1 innings. That's pretty sweet. And Vernon Wells is off to a good start - hopefully a sign that the Jays signed a perennial All-Star, not just a pretty darn good centre fielder.

jeff mcl - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 10:08 AM EDT (#165539) #
Full disclosure: I have been president of the Josh Towers Non-Fan Club for, oh, about a year now.

The errors... yes, they hurt his cause.  The other aberation for the evening was 6 Ks in 5 2/3 innings, combined with 0 walks.  Does anyone reasonably expect him to continue striking out about one per inning?  We can be pretty sure that he will continue to give up something like 10 hits in 5 2/3 of work, though.  You add any walks it's a train wreck of an evening.

I will give you that last night's game was a little bit too greasy to make any strong conclusions one way or the other, I'm just going with my gut here.

Magpie - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#165540) #

It's likely that the Barfield of 83-86 had the highest defensive peak of a right-fielder ever...

Very short peak, though (just like Bell and Moseby). I blame the turf at the Ex.

Mike Green - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT (#165541) #
Stairs had received some time in the outfield in Monday's blowout, and Smith has had plenty of early season work.  I really did not see the necessity for giving them time in the field.  If you really wanted to give Stairs some at-bats, then giving the Big Hurt a rest would have been OK although "frankly" there was no need of this so early in the season. I was also puzzled to see Phillips used against a right-handed pitcher. 
ayjackson - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 10:30 AM EDT (#165542) #
Well I haven't been very supportive of the Towers cause this past offseason, but I'm 100% behind him now.  Courtesy of the idiotic Toronto sports fan who feels the need to booo at every opportunity.  I was disgusted.
laketrout - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 10:35 AM EDT (#165543) #

You add any walks it's a train wreck of an evening.

But he didn't walk anyone. He maintained his control all game. Other than Gordon's home run nobody else hit him hard. 

It did hurt to see Stairs out there in left field compared to Johnson.  I commented to myself earlier in the game that I hated Rios's insistance on basket catching the ball at his waist.  It's a sloppy habbit and it finally burnt him later in the game when he attempted a sliding basket catch.

 

Mike Green - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:03 AM EDT (#165547) #
Tango published yesterday an interesting study on batter strikeouts and growth patterns. It was a topic of some interest here a couple of years ago.
Pistol - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:17 AM EDT (#165548) #
It's a sloppy habbit and it finally burnt him later in the game when he attempted a sliding basket catch.

How else would he try to catch that? 

That was a really tough play, particularly running towards a wall at full speed which is probably why he slid.


I don't have a problem with Gibbons getting the bench some playing time.  But I don't think you need to have three subs on the same day, particularly if Phillips isn't facing a lefty.
China fan - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:19 AM EDT (#165549) #

    I'm still not convinced by the criticism of the starting lineup choices by Gibbons last night.  Let's look at the decisions in detail:

   1) Smith instead of Clayton.   This is an easily defensible move, and something that many people have been suggesting for weeks.  Smith has been batting over .300 throughout the entire spring training and even in his limited at-bats in the regular season.  He's got more power than Clayton and deserves an occasional start.  Both his offence (a double and run scored) and his defence were adequate last night.  I don't see anything wrong with this move.

   2) Phillips instead of Zaun.  Again, another defensible move.  Everyone agrees that Zaun will wear down if he plays every game.  He needs to sit at least once or twice a week.  In any event, he was still given an at-bat last night, and he produced a two-run homer.  By the end of the game, the catcher position in the lineup had gone 1-for-3 with a homer and two RBIs -- the best production of any spot in the lineup.  Nothing wrong with Gibbons here.

   3) Stairs instead of Johnson.   Clearly this led to some decline in the outfield defence -- no question about it.  But Johnson cannot play 162 games in the outfield this year.  You've got to put in a back-up at some point.   Yes, you could call up Lind, but his defence is not necessarily better than that of Stairs, and Lind probably needs a few more weeks or months of AAA seasoning anyway.   Did Stairs cost the game last night?   I don't think so.  Maybe Johnson could have gotten to the triple that Stairs missed, but it's certainly debatable -- and Stairs was not charged with an error.  Does the presence of Stairs mean that the Jays have "the most awful bench in the league"?  Again, I disagree.  This is a guy with 220 career homers, a guy who played a significant role for the Tigers in their stretch drive last season.   Is there another veteran outfielder who is better than Stairs and easily available to the Jays?  I'm not persuaded.

CaramonLS - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:36 AM EDT (#165550) #
Pistol mentioned it, Phillips should only start vs. LHP.
Ryan Day - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:37 AM EDT (#165551) #

I think any of the lineup changes, individually,  are defensible.  Everyone needs time off here and there - particularly Thomas and Glaus, less so the still-quite-young outfield - and keeping the bench fresh is important.

  All three at once, however? That seems excessive. A defensive and offensive downgrade.

  Also, John McDonald would seem even more redundant if Jason Smith can play a competent shortstop. I'd rather see Hattig, Roberts, or Griffin on the bench. I haven't actually seen Smith in the field, though; any observations?

Radster - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:37 AM EDT (#165552) #

Towers was only 1 out away from a quality start.  He did OK, and if he keeps this up he should win at least as much as he loses this year.

I question whether Stairs contributed "significantly" to Detriot's stretch drive.  Anyway, I was also questioning why 3 backups needed to be inserted into the lineup last nite, but it occurs to me that perhaps it was an attempt to generate some offence against the best pitcher the Jays will face this series?

AWeb - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:38 AM EDT (#165553) #
It's not the individual moves most of us are complaining about, it's that they were all made last night. Stairs makes sense, as much as he ever would,  when a groundball/strikeout pitcher is throwing. Well, that ain't Towers.  Phillips against a righty sort of defeats the purpose of having him. On a single game basis, none of the individual moves are terrible. All at once, we're right to question them.

The regulars botched just as many plays though, with Wells picking up a deserved error that lead to the first run, and Rios looking like he forgot how to play on the turf on a few plays. Oh, and Rios should be catching the ball overhand while sliding. Basket catch while sliding in much harder to do, even if it is his instinct.

With that, I'm letting the game go. Unless the Jays make a habit out of playing that way for the rest of the year, last night won't be remembered at all by September.

RhyZa - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:46 AM EDT (#165555) #

I'll leave it to standup Mr. Towers himself to say it if none of you want to. 

"I had some balls leak over the plate the whole time, that's where the 10 hits come into play," said Towers. "They got a couple of broken bat hits, off the end of the bat hits, but the bottom line is those balls aren't located otherwise they don't fall in, know what I'm saying?"

Diplomacy?  Maybe, but I get the feeling he realized a long time ago that you cannot make excuses or look around for help in this game.  Now if only his supporters could do the same.

The booing was wrong, but it isn't something totally out of left field either.   It was wrong in the sense that he deserves a fresh start and it is counter productive, but it is also obviously a reaction based on the accumulative affect of the fans having to put up with all of his wretched starts last year.  I agree, that they should give him a bit more rope, but he has been given both security and reasonably high expectations in the past and failed, and this naturally has it's price.  So now he is back to square one, just like when he pitches, he has little room for error at this point of his career.

I wouldn't throw Gibbons under the bus for his moves either.  Strategically inept, maybe, but I think some people delving into the conspiracy theories of him wanting to see Towers fail are stretching it a bit.

Jonny German - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 12:24 PM EDT (#165558) #
Everyone agrees that Zaun will wear down if he plays every game.  He needs to sit at least once or twice a week
 
True enough, but Phillips is a guy who for his career has a severe platoon differential (100 points of OPS) in favour of him facing lefties. The Royals are starting a lefty tonight. Why play Phillips last night?
 
By the end of the game, the catcher position in the lineup had gone 1-for-3 with a homer and two RBIs -- the best production of any spot in the lineup.  Nothing wrong with Gibbons here.
 
That's a joke, right? You're doing an "Enron accounting" bit?
 
a guy who played a significant role for the Tigers in their stretch drive last season.
 
You mean the stretch drive where they collapsed and settled for the wild card while he put up a .295 OBP in 14 games?
Jonny German - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 12:26 PM EDT (#165559) #
but it occurs to me that perhaps it was an attempt to generate some offence against the best pitcher the Jays will face this series?
 
I think that theory is way too generous to Gibbons. This is a team that was averaging 7 runs per game going in to last night, there was no need for any tweaks to the offence.
actionjackson - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 01:01 PM EDT (#165562) #
I have no problem with Jason Phillips at catcher because I think I heard somewhere in Spring Training that he was going to work Josh's games at least at the start of the season because of their rapport from Syracuse. While I personally believe that at this level you've got to be able to work with anybody and I don't like the role of "personal catcher", I don't see any harm in it at the start of the year and catching is the most grueling position there is. Yes, they could've lined him up for a LHP. God knows they're facing enough of them right now. I don't have a problem with Jason Smith either, but for God's sakes keep the starting outfield together for Chacin, Ohka and Towers or you're just asking for a world of hurt. I thought Josh was able to get groundballs and strikeouts when he needed them and not to complain about umpiring but it has been atrocious for both teams in this series. I can't wait until they leave. Zero walks and 19 strikeouts between the two teams last night? Oh, to be a fly on the wall when that Questec report comes back. Further to that, when Lyle Overbay argues a call, as he did when he tagged Sweeney, shortly before Gordon hit the living hell out of it, you know the umps are having difficulties. Just ask Buddy Bell, but be sure to stand back a bit, maybe lower your custom spit guards.
King Rat - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 01:02 PM EDT (#165563) #
I really don't see how you can blame Towers for that loss. I particularly enjoyed this line of argument:

Add a walk or two to that line, however, and KC would've easily put a couple more runs on the board.

First, Towers, whatever his readily apparent limitations as a pitcher, has always been a guy who won't walk batters. Second, it's really sort of rich to get on a guy's case for something he did completely right. As well, I'm not sure how you watch that game and come to the conclusion that 10 hits in 5 2/3 innings is the default setting for a Towers start; as several people have pointed out, the only ball that was hit hard was Gordon's homer, and the defence's miscues didn't start and end with the four errors.

I'm not suggesting that I think Towers is going to set the world on fire, but he pitched pretty well last night, and was done in by some bad luck. As far as the strikeouts go, I certainly don't expect him to strike out more than a guy an inning, but that's more because he won't be facing the Royals all year than because I think he was fluking his way to the punchouts. It was an aggravating game, no question-but I thought there was reason for optimism going forwards amidst the errors.

China fan - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#165564) #

      I meant to say that the catcher position went 2-for-3 with a homer and two RBIs last night.   That's the combined performance of Phillips (1-for-2) and Zaun (1-for-1).   How is this Enron accounting?  Just because Gibbons put Phillips in the starting lineup doesn't mean that he intended to keep him there for the whole night.  He juggled the catchers pretty well, I'd say.

    As for Stairs with Detroit -- I was referring to the Stairs who got 8 RBIs in 41 at bats with the Tigers, along with an SLG of .463.   That's what they acquired him to do -- to produce runs, not to produce a high OBP.

 

mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 03:36 PM EDT (#165572) #

I mostly lurk here, but I thought I'd weigh in with some of my thoughts on Josh Towers in general (most of which have been previously posted at the official site).

Towers may have looked decent today in some respects (strikeouts, corner painting at times), but he was his old self in other respects, including the rediculous number of hits allowed (10 in 5.2 innings is AWFUL), and the homerun allowed following an error is vintage Josh. Some of you have been suggesting that he was unlucky due to the fact that a couple of the balls hit to left that dropped in as hits were possibly in range of being a play that Reed would've been able to make, but the hit that went for a triple that Stairs missed was reasonably well hit, and would've been one heck of a play for even Reed. Furthermore, Josh also got lucky on a couple of ocasions when Vernon was able to catch a couple of 380-400 foot line drives that Towers let up as well. Overall, I'd say it at least balances out.

As far as the errors go, only one was actually costly to Towers directly - the one in the 6th. The Wells missed catch only resulted in an extra bag that didn't result in an unearned run scoring, and the the Hill misplay was erased as well.  

I've never been much of a Towers supporter. He simply does not have great stuff (88mph fastball, questionable secondaries in a slider that is incositant, and he leaves hanging far too often - this results in the opposing batting average that he has that is over .300 for his career) and thus has limited longterm upside. We have starters in the system (Marcum, McGowan, Janssen) that have unquestionably more upside based on innate talent. However, the problem with employing these options up until now is that in the short-term, these guys are likely to perform worse than a Towers that isn't his 06 self. I have always lamented the decisions made by the coaching staff in removing these young guys from the rotation in order to garner a few more short-term wins. A perfect example is removing McGowan from the rotation when Lilly, I believe, came back from the DL at the end of the 05 season - McGowan was removed in favour of starting Downs in that spot, effectively showing limited confidence in McGowan's ability to make adjustments and improve, while keeping a guy in the rotation that has subsequently become a middle reliever of decent, but not fantastic calibre.

Some might argue that Towers' 05 season shows he has upside. However, if you look beyond the ERA he posted (3.71), he still had an opposing average of over .300, and gave up quite a few unearned runs, which if they had been counted towards his ERA would've inflated his numbers towards an ERA of 4.36, which while still good is not nearly AS good.


Innings      Hits      Runs     ER
208.2         237      101         86

ht tp://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/stats/player_locator_results.jsp?c_id=tor&playerLocator=towers

Towers got lucky in 2005.

Point to all of this is that simply speaking - a #5 starter on most teams is a young, inexperienced guy with upside. That is exactly why they typically have higher ERAs - they are learning on the job enroute to hopefully holding down a rotation spot at the top or middle of the rotation in a couple of years. Towers has been one of the best 5 starters in baseball at times from a performance standpoint, but one of the worst in baseball from a future returns on time investment.

cascando - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 04:26 PM EDT (#165573) #

Robert McLeod is in the group that pities Towers for having to pitch in front of a lineup missing a few regulars.  I don't see the big deal and I don't think he needs to be handled with kid-gloves like McLeo.  To me, Smith is an upgrade at SS both defensively and with the bat against Greinke.  Phillips was probably in there because Towers prefers him. That means the only downgrade was Stairs in left and that might be an offensive improvement in any event.  It's kind of a catch-22 for the manager: Towers is in, you need your 9 best defenders... but Towers is in, you'd better have your top 9 bats.

If Towers can't succeed just because Reed Johnson is on the bench to start the game, he's going to be in trouble.  Especially when Lind arrives.

mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 04:35 PM EDT (#165575) #
Exactly - there is no reason a pitcher should require gold glove calibre defence behind him in order to succeed. Towers melted down after giving up the HR to Gordon, and a 2 of the unearned runs were the result of mislocated pitches getting hit hard once he had lost his concentration. Gibbons probably should've removed him from the game as soon as Gorodn hit the HR.
Jonny German - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 04:46 PM EDT (#165576) #

the homerun allowed following an error is vintage Josh

Wouldn't it be easier to just come out and say that you don't like the guy? Towers allowed 17 home runs in his nightmare 2006. None of them followed an error. None of them even came in an inning where an error was committed.

greenfrog - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 04:55 PM EDT (#165578) #
Halladay gave up a HR the other day after Overbay failed to catch a foul pop. No error was charged but it was a play that could have been made. Vintage Halladay, I guess.
jsut - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT (#165579) #
he still had an opposing average of over .300

Actually, it was .285.  And looking at his career stats it looks like he plays a bit better in odd numbered years. 
mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 05:16 PM EDT (#165580) #

I don't like the fact that the Jays have used a low upside pitcher as a placeholder while better long-term investments have been available. I have nothing against Josh Towers the person, but don't feel he should have been employed by this team as long as he has.

If the one thing you can attack in my previous post is the HRs allowed following an error, then my post obviously has few holes. I was thinking more about the 2005 Josh Towers who gave up the large number of uneaned runs when I made that statement rather than the strict Hr following an error statement. Granted, I should've been more precise. I then went and searched his 2005 starts for HRs following errors, and came up with 4 times that this occured in 2005. Note that the first one occurred when the runner was on base, and thus did not result in an unearned run scoring. The first occurrence took place just before the ASB, and the rest occurred following the ASB - corresponding to unearned runs being given up during his solid looking second half to his 2005 season.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR200507160.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR200507270.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR200509140.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR200509200.shtml

Granted, having this happen 4 times in a season may not be terrible, but they were concentrated in pretty well the second half - which probably is where my negative recollection about prior occurences came from. If you look at his splits, say about 4 of the last 14 or so homeruns he gave up in the 2005 season occured following an error:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psplit.cgi?n1=towerjo01&year=2005

Then, as well you'll see that 10 of the 44 runs he gave up in the second half were unearned - which is where a portion of the improvement in his second half ERA was derived.

mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#165581) #

he still had an opposing average of over .300

Actually, it was .285.  And looking at his career stats it looks like he plays a bit better in odd numbered years.

 

Fair enough, in that I am in error.

jsut - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 05:28 PM EDT (#165583) #
while better long-term investments have been available

Who are you talking about?  The only person i can think of would be Dave Bush, cause they tried everyone in the rotation at one point or another last year from what i recall. The only person that was really working out very well was Janssen until he hurt himself and didn't tell anyone.  Marcum looked serviceable at the end of the year as well IIRC.  McGowan has never looked very good starting in the bigs that i can remember, though hopefully he's got everything figured out now and can come up and make a difference this year.

Last year they gave Towers too long a rope, hoping he'd get back to his form from 2005.  This year that won't be the case.  He's basically got to prove himself every start, and if he's as bad as burnett was in the second game of the season at any point, that could be the end of his career in a Jays uniform and possibly forever.  Until he strings together some crap starts, i think he deserves the spot he earned this spring.  I wouldn't count yesterday as a crappy start.

Here's hoping Chacin can win the series for them tonight.
mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 05:41 PM EDT (#165584) #

Janssen (as of last year), Gaudin (who is currently pitching well out of the As rotation, and had a solid year in the pen last season), Marcum (who has Towers-esque control and much better secondaries), McGowan (he did not pitch terribly in 2005 out of the rotation - there was a LOT of bad-luck occurences during his starts, including the terrible heat in Baltimore that played havoc with Bedard's start as well and caused several defensive miscues by the Jays that were scored as hits, including the flyball that was lost in the sun by Johnson who was playing centre that day for Wells who was sick I believe; the fielding miscus by Koskie in the 7th inning I believe vs the Tigers, and there are more that I cannot recall currently), Rosario (who has a good change, mid nineties heat, and a good while inconsistant slider, and who had a heck of a season in AAA last season). I'm probably missing a couple of others.

Right now we are in a position where we have stalled the development of several of our pitching prospects over the last couple of seasons (most notably McGowan) due to the fact that we have been unwilling to let them work through thier struggles at the mlb level. This resistance to allowing development time has been due to the Jays management's decisions in managing the rotation in a way that has maximized the short term gain (ie. playing the hot hand in Downs at the end of 2005, while placing McGowan in the pen to end the year, which then resulting in the cascade of events that saw McGowan start last season in the AAA pen) while preventing long term gain provided by prospect development. This mandate of maximizing short term wins has come as a result of the managments' desire to keep up the facade of having the Jays compete, while the reality has been that the team had minimal chances of making the postseason in the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 05:44 PM EDT (#165585) #

Here's hoping Chacin can win the series for them tonight.

On that we definately agree. Don't get me wrong - I love the Jays - I just fundamentally disagree with some of the managements decisions over the last couple of seasons.


Mike Green - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 06:02 PM EDT (#165586) #
I wouldn't personally call Gaudin's 2006 solid, what with 42 walks and 36 strikeouts in 64 innings, but that's just me.

Nothing that I have seen so far this season has changed my opinion that Shaun Marcum is the third best starting pitcher option currently.  The reasons are simple: he's healthy, his minor league record is excellent,  he's had enough work in the high minors, and his major league K rate is plenty high enough.  To my thoroughly untrained eye, his stuff looks good enough to succeed.  I am hoping that he gets a chance soon. 

mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 06:11 PM EDT (#165588) #

Gaudin's peripherals from last year weren't great, true. But his 2006 ERA, Hits and HRs allowed, and his solid fastball/great slider combo coupled with his 2005 AAA season indicate talent in my opinion. His 2005 season with the Jays was a write-off, granted, but he was put into a pressure packed situation where the Jays pulled him after only a couple of starts, banishing him to AAA. They got so down on him, despite his AAA season and obvious upside that they gave him to the As for essentially (Dustin Majewski may eventually be a 4th outfielder, but probably won't be a starting outfielder). In my opinion, this was not warranted, and it is the Jays loss.

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/teams/players/bio/?id=4330&hubname=mlb-athletics

CaramonLS - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 06:22 PM EDT (#165589) #
Nothing that I have seen so far this season has changed my opinion that Shaun Marcum is the third best starting pitcher option currently.  The reasons are simple: he's healthy, his minor league record is excellent,  he's had enough work in the high minors, and his major league K rate is plenty high enough.  To my thoroughly untrained eye, his stuff looks good enough to succeed.  I am hoping that he gets a chance soon.

I'd place Janssen ahead of Marcum, who IMO has taken the next step in his development as a pitcher.
cascando - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 06:38 PM EDT (#165590) #

I think perhaps too much is being made of the fact that Towers was 1 out away from a quality start.  He gave up 6 singles, 1 double, 2 triples and 1 HR in less than 6 innings.  The Royals slugged around .700... those numbers are a recipe for disaster, particularly against a better team.  Sloppy defence or not, I think he was extremely lucky to be anywhere near the QS threshold (by another measure, his gamescore of 37 puts him considerably further away from the standard.) 

He'll have to improve considerably on that performance to avoid putting the team in a large hole against Boston or Baltimore in his next start.  I don't really think he should have been in contention for a spot in ST and I don't think his start to the regular season justifies the decision to give him one.  Hopefully he turns things around immediately.

earlweaverfan - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 06:38 PM EDT (#165591) #
As someone who has been a pretty passionate supporter of Josh (and continues to be in his camp), I do not believe that last night tells us very much.  The two fundamental questions about any pitcher are 1) how well he pitches over a series of starts in which he has the chance to build up his strength and get into a rhythm (as all pitchers need to do at the beginning of the season) and 2) how much his results (WL, ERA, BAA, WHIP, K/9, K/BB...) are aided or undermined by forces beyond his control. 

Many people on this page have debated the second issue - how much did the bad D let him down.  IMHO, the big barrier for Josh last night was being ten days since his last start (i.e., no formula for getting into a rhythm).  Last night, the TV guys also suggested that his biggest improvement in ST has been his change-up, but that being a pitch that takes a lot of practice and finesse to get right, again where his rustiness might have set him back a bit.

Of course, what we all tend to focus most on is history (i.e., "I never want to have another year where a starter loses us 10 games") or on future speculations ("I think he has very litte upside compared to X").  The former can skew our thinking (psychologically, my economics professor once admitted, there is no such thing as 'sunk costs').  The latter confuses dreams with reality.  We instantly forgive AJB for his horrendous first start (we just know he has tremendous upside, if he could only harness it) while we endlessly, painfully debate Josh's clearly unimpressive first start.

Ah, human nature, there is nothing quite like it.

Magpie - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 06:41 PM EDT (#165592) #
Marcum (who has Towers-esque control and much better secondaries)

I must admit that my first thought was to wonder which Marcum that would be? Could it be really be Shaun, who walked 38 men in 78 innings last season? Towers has never walked more than 33 in a season, anywhere, anytime, although six times in his pro career he's pitched more than twice as many as 78 innings (he's had workloads of 208, 196, 189, 181, 163, and 163.).

But of course Marcum did demonstrate very good control at the lower levels and in 478 professional innings, he's issued just 103 unintentional walks (1.94 per 9 innings.)  Which is outstanding, if not quite Towers-esque (Towers has issued 90 unintentional walks  in 619 major league innings, or (1.31 per 9 innings).

Whereas Victor Zambrano can walk that many guys in one season, and he don't need to throw no 200 innings to do it, either.

Most pitchers will walk more guys when they get to the major leagues - the hitters are more disciplined, after all - and even Towers had slightly better control numbers in his minor league days.
mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT (#165593) #
Marcum (who has Towers-esque control and much better secondaries)

I must admit that my first thought was to wonder which Marcum that would be? Could it be really be Shaun, who walked 38 men in 78 innings last season? Towers has never walked more than 33 in a season, anywhere, anytime, although six times in his pro career he's pitched more than twice as many as 78 innings (he's had workloads of 208, 196, 189, 181, 163, and 163.).

But of course Marcum did demonstrate very good control at the lower levels and in 478 professional innings, he's issued just 103 unintentional walks (1.94 per 9 innings.)  Which is outstanding, if not quite Towers-esque (Towers has issued 90 unintentional walks  in 619 major league innings, or (1.31 per 9 innings).

Whereas Victor Zambrano can walk that many guys in one season, and he don't need to throw no 200 innings to do it, either.

Most pitchers will walk more guys when they get to the major leagues - the hitters are more disciplined, after all - and even Towers had slightly better control numbers in his minor league days.

 
The comment was primarily derived from Marcum's minor league performance, not his major league performance. I think over time, Marcum will have his walk totals slowly tend towards numbers similar to his minor league days - I don't think we've seen the true Marcum just yet. I'd imagine that this sort of thing is common with a lot of young pitchers - for a variety of reasons, including dealing with the stress of expectations when they finally arrive at the big league level.
Magpie - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 07:00 PM EDT (#165594) #
Oh, this is cool. They've handed out a little booklet on Frank Thomas' drive for 500 career home runs. It lists all 487 that he'd already hit as he went into the season, with the who, what, where, and when. And then it gives you a list of every pitcher the Big Hurt has ever taken for a ride. We're having some fun with it.

Goose Gossage? Frank Tanana? Really?

And then all  the guys whose careers were so short, you'd think they might have escpaed. But no - Frank got them, too - Marty Janzen and Denis Boucher,  Roger Salkeld and Jose Rosado...

Of his teammates, he's got Chacin twice, Ryan, Downs, and Zambrano once.

mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 07:04 PM EDT (#165595) #
One last thing on the Marcum vs Towers control issue - at some point, walks are less a function of a pitchers absolute level of control than they might the result of differences in approach to the hitter - ie. in 3 ball counts, does the pitcher go to his secondaries, and risk the walk, or does he throw the fastball, allowing a higher risk of the opposing hitter getting a hit.
Lefty - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT (#165596) #

This mandate of maximizing short term wins has come as a result of the managments' desire to keep up the facade of having the Jays compete, while the reality has been that the team had minimal chances of making the postseason in the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

So can we take it that this is the real reason you have taken a whole day to make a linear statistical argument for throwing the man under the bus.  It would have been more interesting to read this line of reasoning when the Jays were out signing Ohka, Tompson and Zambrano.  And also without the benefit of  hindsight having seen the results of Marcum, Janssen and McGowan's early returns.

Not so much after Towers pitched a very good ball game, one where without the errors he would have given up something less than ten hits.

Whatever the agenda of these minority reports might be, the fact remains management  put Tower's  into a more difficult spot than was necessary . 

In view of the above statement it would appear to me that you have reason to support managements line-up decisions of last night.

Magpie - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 07:14 PM EDT (#165597) #
I'm not so inclined to blame the defense for last night by the way. Obviously it  hurt the cause, and as a rule, when a pitcher has a good game, his defense has usually done something to help. Towers himself made the best defensive play last night, which is a little odd.

But the main reason they lost was because Zack Greinke. Towers was OK, Greinke  was better than.

Chacin's fastball was 85-87 that first inning.


mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 08:07 PM EDT (#165598) #

So can we take it that this is the real reason you have taken a whole day to make a linear statistical argument for throwing the man under the bus.  It would have been more interesting to read this line of reasoning when the Jays were out signing Ohka, Tompson and Zambrano.  And also without the benefit of  hindsight having seen the results of Marcum, Janssen and McGowan's early returns.

Yes, this is the underlying reason I don't like Josh in the rotation. Last night I feel is indicative of some of the things Josh does badly - including stabilizing himself following an error, and giving up too many hits. However, I have followed this line of reasoning for a long time, and have had discussions elsewhere regarding it over the last couple of seasons - when I did not have the benefit of hindsight. Incidentally, I was not completely upset with the Jays signing those players you mention - I figured they would not be terribly difficult for one of the young guys to supplant, while they may be able to contribute to a winning effort this year - a year that I believe we have a greater chance of making the postseason than in the years before. I view this year as a culmination type year, and am a little upset that our team does not have a developed McGowan, etc in the rotation due to misplaced priorities in previous seasons.

Not so much after Towers pitched a very good ball game, one where without the errors he would have given up something less than ten hits.

Not too many fewer hits would've been given up - and I'm not completely convinced Johnson would've had that triple. Its a possibility, but far from certain in my opinion.

Whatever the agenda of these minority reports might be, the fact remains management  put Tower's  into a more difficult spot than was necessary . 

I agree with you, but I don't believe that a pitcher with his level of experience should be given the constant benefit of the doubt when he has the track-record he does from both the 2002 and 2006 seasons. Granted he has had some decent to good seasons, but allowing him to pitch in our rotation is playing with fire in my opinion.

In view of the above statement it would appear to me that you have reason to support managements line-up decisions of last night.

Yes and no. On one hand I believe that having Towers put up numbers that may be a bit worse than is truly completely representative of the way he pitched (and Im still not convinced this really occurred last night) while McGowan pitches well in Syracuse probably serves the team better in the long run. This is obviously due to the fact that a developed McGowan in the rotation is likely better than having Towers in the rotation. On the other hand, I don't like the thought of giving the team anything less than the best hof succuss on any given night in a year in which we are probably seriously competing. I am on the fence as far as this goes. Overall, despite my dislike for Towers in the rotation, it is based upon wanting the best for this team.

CeeBee - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 08:09 PM EDT (#165599) #
Seeing as Chacin has already given up 2 runs maybe we should start dissing him as well while we're at it.
mcpherv - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 08:25 PM EDT (#165600) #

I don't believe I'm "dissing" Towers. I think I am identifying truths that aren't necessarily nice about a player that seems to have more support here than I believe his track-record deserves.

This is the last post I'm going to be making on the Towers issue, as I seem to have struck a nerve. I wanted to stimulate discussion, but the derisive comments idicate that I haven't so much started discussion as promoted dissention.

I don't believe that a blazing fastball is necessary for success as a pitcher in mlb, although it is a useful tool to possess. However, I think that if a player doesn't have a plus fastball, he has more chance of prolonged success if he has at least one plus secondary - which from what I understand is exactly what Chacin has in his cutter.

Chacin, I'm not sure about. His track record so far isn't bad, and if you discount the starts in which he left injured last season, he didn't pitch too badly overall (no I have not done the calculations right now, but he did end up with an ERA of 5.05 last season and gave up significant numbers of runs in the starts he left injured, while pitching relatively few innings - 5 runs in 3 IP on May 10, 5ER in 4.1 innnings on June 4th folowed by 2 ER in 3IP on June 10 http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/playerGameLog?categoryId=278955&selectedSeason=2006). On the other hand, he doesn't have great control, doens't have a dominating pitch other than maybe his cutter, and is giving up quite a number of HRs so far this season. I don't know about him.

Jordan - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 09:49 PM EDT (#165603) #

I'm way too late to this discussion, but let me just say this: what last night's game showed was that Matt Stairs in no way resembles a fourth outfielder on a championship contender. Stairs is a pinch-hitter/DH who should play the outfield only in an emergency; it's a joke that the Jays have both John McDonald and Jason Smith on the team while failing to carry a legitimate backup outfielder. And it's not like Stairs' bat can carry his defence either. At this stage, I'd say drop McDonald and bring up Justin Singleton to be the extra outfielder: he's a superb defender, can pinch-run, and has a little pop in his bat, though he'll never threaten the Mendoza Line as a regular.

I half-wonder if Gibbons started Stairs in the outfield last night to prove a point to Ricciardi. Josh Towers deserved better than that.

Mike Green - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 10:05 PM EDT (#165605) #
Good times, bad times, you know I've seen them all.  One of the latter was Dave Berg patrolling the outfield.  If memory serves, I suggested that the Jays could do worse than calling up Justin Singleton at the time to do exactly what Jordan described him doing. 

Right now, with a club that realistically can contend, it would be nice to see Adam Lind here instead.

Jim - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 10:56 PM EDT (#165606) #
Right now, with a club that realistically can contend, it would be nice to see Adam Lind here instead.

I hate having the young player sitting on the bench.  Jordan is exactly right, they need to make a move and find another outfielder but I'd hold off on Lind until injuries allow Gibbons to get him in the lineup everyday. 
China fan - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:01 PM EDT (#165607) #

    It seems increasingly clear that the Jays are keeping both McDonald and Smith on the team because they know that Glaus is hobbled by some minor injuries or ailments that will require him to rest regularly.  The team needs two backup infielders because of the 3B and SS situations.  Gibbons wants to be able to pinch-hit for Clayton in late innings, and he wants to have an infielder ready to replace Glaus at any point in a game.   If he uses Stairs to pinch hit for Clayton, he needs Smith or McDonald ready to enter the game in the following inning  -- and one of them might already be playing 3B to replace Glaus.   A lot of observers have already noted, since the middle of spring training, that Glaus is looking a bit creaky out there.

Nick - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:17 PM EDT (#165608) #
At this stage, I'd say drop McDonald and bring up Justin Singleton to be the extra outfielder: he's a superb defender, can pinch-run, and has a little pop in his bat, though he'll never threaten the Mendoza Line as a regular.

Justin Singleton was released this spring. 

The only thing I could find on his current whereabouts was this Atlantic League blog citing him unoffically signing with the Camden club.
Ryan C - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:27 PM EDT (#165612) #
The team does lack a solid backup OF but it's not because of MacDonald and Smith.  It's because Ohka, Zambrano, Janssen, and Marcum are all on the 25 man roster.

At least one of those guys is completely unnecessary.  I mean everyone knows the Jays' 3-4-5 starters aren't exactly All-Stars, but I don't believe the situation warrants carrying what amounts to 3 longmen in the bullpen.
Ryan Day - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:28 PM EDT (#165613) #
If we're making early-season judgments, I think we'll have to agree that while Ricciardi may have horribly mismanaged his assets in the starting rotation, he has completely validated his drafting strategy now that Aaron Hill seems well on his way to an All-Star berth and possible MVP contention.

  Somewhat more seriously: Man, the bullpen is doing a nice job. The Royals looked like they should be playing in AA against Frasor and B.J. "Anyone Who Needs to Throw More than Ten Pitches In An Inning is a Sissy" Ryan.

 Quibbling: "John McDonald" and "Bases Loaded" do not belong anywhere near each other.

fozzy - Wednesday, April 11 2007 @ 11:35 PM EDT (#165614) #
Jordan, I'm pretty sure Justin Singleton was released prior to the
season's start. With Griffin, Lind, Mottola, Vento and Duncan on the 'Cuse roster, there wasn't room for him.
Jordan - Thursday, April 12 2007 @ 12:24 PM EDT (#165641) #

I'm sorry to hear Singleton was let go -- I saw him in a late-spring game against the Yankees and assumed he was still with the organization -- since I thought he'd be ideal for just such a situation as I (and Mike G) proposed

I agree Lind should stay in Syracuse until such time as there's at least a half-time major-league job for him -- he needs ABs. What the Jays need is an actual fourth outfielder, and neither Lind nor John-Ford Griffin fit that bill.

Fawaz - Thursday, April 12 2007 @ 12:40 PM EDT (#165642) #
I am actively rooting against Ben Sheets this year. After last night I'm really excited about a phenomenal season from King Felix, but I just wouldn't be able stand both my 2006 Cy picks coming through a year later, especially since I couldn't get my BB picks in on time this season. Of course, had I managed to submit those picks their arms would have fallen off immediately (They still might - Hargrove, it seems, is going to do what he can to nip this career in the bud and Ben Sheets is Ben Sheets.)
11 April 2007: (R < E) = $%*#^@ | 63 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.