The struggling Shaun Marcum?

Relatively speaking, yes.

His July ERA was 4.76
His August ERA was 4.01

Although considering expecations and projections, that probably is not struggling for him.

I hate to admit it, but with Toronto only trailing the Wild Card by 5 games after the Mariners, they've sucked me back into thinking they have an outside chance. Damn you slight hot streak from a .500 team!

Almost everything, aside from a long Toronto win streak, has fallen into place the last two weeks, with Seattle's losing streak, Detroit and New York splitting seven games, Detroit on a persistent downswing, New York struggling to beat anyone but Boston, Minnesota not putting in a big run. Of course, all of that only manages to put Toronto in outside chance territory, but still, better than most of us figured after that crushing sweep by Oakland.

And Gibbons, thank you for putting Stairs in the lineup tonight, which I see has already paid off with another double and a run.

I thought that today I'd get to see Lind, but no.  Lind has been up for three games now and, like Thigpen and Olmedo, continues to ride the pine.  Why even bother calling these guys up if they're going to rot on the bench?  The Jays aren't realistically in a race right now and these guys should be playing.

So why hasn't the "injured" V-Dub had a day off since Lind got called back up? 

You may disagree, but I think that Gibbons' decision to not have someone he trusts warming up in the bullpen when the score became 10-7 or 10-8 is worse than his decision to bring Kennedy in earlier (which I don't like, granted, but it looks much much worse with the benefit of hindsight). I'm one of the bigger Josh Towers fans out there, but here you have someone who a) hasn't pitched in 2 weeks, b) as a result of that long layoff did not look good muddling through the 5th inning without giving up a run, and c) had to sit on the bench for a long time while the Jays were scoring 8 runs. I can't see how Josh letting the first two hitters in the 6th reach base was surprising at all. (I will admit that I don't know exactly when Frasor started warming up, and am assuming that he started warming when Towers started the bottom of the 6th...that's the impression I got from the radio but I may have missed something.) And again, I can't understand why Gibbons has completely buried Frasor, but even I will admit that putting him into a situation where there are runners on 2nd and 3rd with no out is not putting him into a situation where he'll be successful.

I know that this would never happen (and that quite a few people here will disagree with me), but I would've had either Wolfe or Frasor to start the 6th given my points above. Gibbons has already demonstrated that he doesn't trust Towers at all, so he shouldn't care about bruising Josh's ego by taking him out after just 1 inning - never mind the obvious that his trust in Towers completely conflicts with allowing Towers to pitch in a 10-9 game. Gibbons' thought process for keeping Towers in is so frustratingly transparent: 1) Towers is the "long man" in the pen, of course he should be able to pitch more than 1 inning, and 2) well, the Jays are still losing, so let's "save" the trusty bullpen pitchers until the Jays get the lead (which probably means that he didn't even think of having Wolfe be the next man out of the bullpen).

I will grant that my alternative of having Wolfe or Frasor start the 6th is very limited, but obviously Gibbons isn't going to use either of the remaining lefties, Janssen, or Accardo, so that's what I've come up with. Given Frasor's limited usage over the past few months, I'm pretty sure that the best situation for him to succeed is starting an inning with a complete slate as opposed to bringing him in with men on base. Anyway, I invite anyone to let me know if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here, but for some reason this decision really made me frustrated.

I don't think Luna will be brought up until tomorrow. (Actually looking at the clock I should probably say 'today')

The TSN Turning Point last night was definitely Ellsbury's sweet diving catch of Hurt's liner in the sixth. If it falls in, the game is tied at 10s, and Delcarmen has to deal with Glaus, who just homered in his last at-bat off a reasonably similar pitcher. Also, Gibbons has time to get one of his favorite relievers up in the pen. Instead, he leaves Towers into face Boston's 4-5-6 hitters with nobody loosening in the pen, and it backfires. Stupid lousy leverage. Worst of all, Manny Ramirez makes that catch approximately 0 times out of 10...

Doc will be in tough tomorrow. He's been whomped by the Red Sox two straight times. His last two game scores against Boston are 17 and 29; in 10 innings over those 2 starts, he's racked up 4 strikeouts, 4 walks, 19 hits and 13 runs.

Last night's game had the potential to rev the team up through the rest of the month for a playoff run, however unlikely the team's chances may be. To me, though, the comeback was stunted by Gibbons mismanagement of the bullpen (yet again). There's no reason why Kennedy should have been brought out in a 5-1 game and why Towers was still pitching after the team had the big inning.

Once again, Gibbons mismanaged the team to defeat. We can only imagine the impact that a comeback win (following a sweep of Seattle) from a 10-1 deficit against Boston would have had for this team.

I don't have a huge problem with bringing Kennedy in when he did. 2 of the runs wouldn't have scored without the error; it was not just a 4 run deficit but a four run deficit with runners on first and third and only one out. Although you can make a case for Tallet or Frasor you have to bear in mind that you'll need the bullpen for the whole series.

Bringing Towers back out after it was 10-9 was completely idiotic, though.

Steve Treder's 1998-2001 Value Production Standings article in today's THT neatly encapsulates the end of the Ash era, with its positives and negatives.

Manny plays a shallow LF. I suspect he makes that play without the Elsbury dive.

If it's true a manager is only responsible for 5 games either way in the W-L column, last night was definitely a game that Gibbons lost for the team. His managerial mistakes on a NIGHTLY basis are getting pathetic.

Seriously now... and this guy gets paid to do this? 

Great heart and tenacity from the Jays who really look like they have FINALLY decided that they want to make it to the playoffs.  However, they always seem to crap the bed in these types of games.  Uncharacteristic errors, awful managing and a rare wash from the pitching staff. 

Hopefully Doc stops being the Sox' personal whipping boy and finally decides to be THE DOC.

DAMN 4.5 games back after a victory from a 10-1 deficit would have been nice... oh well.

Last night was frustrating.

You have Jason Frasor, who obviously was OK to go in yesterday, who has a K an inning. You have baserunners on with just one out. That sounds like who you should go to rather than a leftie who has never K'd many guys. Still, bringing in Kennedy when he did was fine, as the Jays want to know if Kennedy can be a piece next year. I would've saved Kennedy for when the game got out of hand (5-1 early is still within reach) for his first BJ appearance, but I can see the argument for using him if he is great at ground ball outs.

Towers on the other hand... his first inning made sense if you assume Kennedy is going to be a one inning at the most guy (he might only be able to go that far). The second inning seemed very odd though as, once the Jays started the comeback, I'd have had someone else warming up who I trusted rather than keeping Towers in.

I do wonder about Gibbons in-game managment but can see cases for his choices last night. In the end the result probably wouldn't have changed but I do wonder how choices are made down there.

Is anyone else glad to see Litsch struggling? His K/BB is 35/27 in 82 innings and yet because of the low ERA he has been on track for a spot in the rotation next season... which I sure don't want to see.

I'd love to see him put it all together, I just think he is not ready yet and would only hurt the team if he started for us right away.

Litsch's overall K/BB rate is kind of misleading. In his first tour of duty, it was 3/7 in 17 innings - clearly not good, as the 6.62 ERA would attest.

But since he was called up in July, it's been 32/20 in 65 innings. That's still not great, but it's an improvement - just the sort of thing I want to see from a young pitcher. I wouldn't go so far as to give him a sure-thing rotation spot in 2008, but I think he deserves to stay in the rotation until he proves he can't or someone else does better. I really don't know who you'd put in his place - Josh Towers? Yuck.

Glad to see Litsch "struggling"?  No.  Surprised to see him get hit? No. 

Litsch fields his position well, and knows how to pitch even if he is not going to overpower major league hitters.  His minor league record is good, and he is just 22, so the odds that he is going to be a valuable contributor in the long run are pretty good.  Nonetheless, it would be best for Litsch's long-term development if he opened 2008 either in Syracuse or in the Toronto bullpen.  Hopefully, Ryan and/or League will take Janssen's spot in the bullpen, allowing him to move to the 08 rotation.  Janssen is pretty clearly further along the developmental path than Litsch and is ready for the role.

For a 22 year old rookie, Litsch's overall performance this year has been far from that of a "struggling pitcher".  He remains on a good track.

Perhaps I could have been more precise: I'd like to see Litsch's ERA reflect his peripherals. If he hits his spots more effecectively and picks up the strikeouts/grounders, then I'll be happy to see him starting in the majors... Until he does, however, I don't want to see him garanteed a starting spot based on a lucky ERA.

No doubt that he has a bright future though.

You guys are absolutely ridiculous in your bashing of Gibbons. Kennedy is up with the Jays to audition for next year. Bringing him into the game down four and facing a lefty is an easy spot to audition. Gibbons sucks because Kennedy couldn't throw a strike? No, Kennedy sucks because he couldn't throw a strike.
As for Towers and Frasor, it is their job to keep the other team at bay when the jays are trailing. Burning our already burnt out relievers for the last three innings in a game where we trailed would have been a stupid move. Some times the players need to step and get the job done. For too many games this year the Jays have not done that. Blaming the manager is an easy out.

I have actually really been impressed with Gibbons' bull pen use and timely pinch hitting he has used this year. On so many occasions he has used the double switch (often with Stairs and Olmedo swapping out Johnny Mac and Reed), which is something you never see in the AL. Being down 10-1 on the road and not coming back should not be blamed on the manager. Unless you want to blame Rios's overthrow of the cut off man and Glaus's error on bad coaching. And then link the bad coaching to Gibbons.

Bashing of Gibbons is right. Bringing Kennedy to face a bunch of lefty wasn't a  bad move. Bringing Towers when down 10-1 was alright. Keeping Towers to start the next inning was stupid, though.

At this point in the season, you have to field your best players every single game. Down by one run in the 6th, the game was perfectly winnable.

You can't predict what will happen the next day. Halladay can throw a complete game or leave with a sizable deficit and then you haven't saved the bullpen, you've wasted it. Seattle had Putz  on the bench for a full week. What did that get them?

Gibbons should have started Lind instead of Thomas against Beckett. Just look at the career numbers. Another no-brainer here.

Yep, another complete game for Halladay. He threw 121 pitches and every batter took him deep in the eight including one home run. That was really worth saving the pen another inning.

Gibbons couldn't find a way to pitch hit in the loss because the bottom of the lineup went to bat in the 7th. What's wrong with putting Adams and Olmedo in there for a couple of innings and giving Lind one at-bat?

Gibbons talking about Monday: "This is more like us."

Wells is hitting .125 in the last 7 days.  Let's use him as a late inning defensive replacement.

Olmedo isn't available for a few days as he has left the team to be with his wife who is having a baby.

I try to avoid second guessing the manager (although I did so earlier in this thread).  Gibbons is really pushing it though.

Halladay was over 110 pitches going to the 8th inning.  7 decent innings, allowing 4 runs, should've been enough. Instead he gets another (his 7th) complete game and a 126 pitch outing.  The lowest pitch count he has had after his short outing on June 5th is 97 pitches.  He has had 4 games now with 120+ pitches, 3 out of his last 4 games have been 124-126 pitches.  Those games he has pitched two 8 inning complete games and 2 9 inning games without getting a CG (both were extra inning affairs).  This is just asking for arm trouble.  Funny thing is his last 5 starts he has allowed 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 runs in that order.  All 5 being complete games or 9 inning no decisions.

It is clear that Gibbons is trying to get Halladay more wins and to give his pen a day off whenever Halladay pitches.  Nice goals, but secondary to keeping your staff healthy. 

Checking other starters to see if this is a pattern...
Marcum - one game over 110 pitches, just twice out of his last 9 games did he crack 100, twice allowing 3 or more earned runs, just once out of 9 times getting 7 innings in.  Obviously Gibbons is playing it very safe here.

McGowan - twice at 111, once at 117 (May).  95-106 pitches for his last 7 games.  Twice in those 7 had 8 IP.  Lots of trust but a strong pitch limit it appears (I suspect he was yelled at after the 117 pitch outing).  Hasn't allowed more than 3 runs in a game since July 14th.  5 or more IP in all but 2 starts all season (June 19th 1 2/3 IP, and May 18th 4 2/3).

Burnett - 5 starts since returning from the DL, steady increase in pitches.  90, 106, 102, 110, 115.  1-3 ER allowed in each game.  6 1/3 to 7 1/3 IP.  Lets hope Gibbons remembers how the 130 & 125 games pushed AJ beyond his limits and gives the guy a 110 limit from now on.

Litsch - 106 is as high as he has gone, cracking 100 just 4 times.  Only twice since his return has he allowed more than 3 ER (last game and July 20th where he allowed 4).  That is over 11 games.  Outside of his first ML start he hasn't thrown more than 7 IP. 

Clearly Gibbons sees Halladay and AJ as vets who can 'take it' while playing it safe with the kids.  A good idea as if anyone can take the abuse it would be the vets who have learned (hopefully) how to tell if they are going too far.  I really, really hope Gibbons plays it safe for the rest of the year though and cuts down on the pitch counts for AJ and Roy as the last thing we need is for either to be hurt and needing arm surgery.

Roy Halladay had thrown 116 pitches and had given up 4 runs through 7 innings. The club was down by 1 run.  Given the fact that the team's chances this season are very poor, i would have pulled him but I can see why Gibbons did not.  Burnett is a completely different story.  With his injury history, there is no excuse for allowing him to go over 110 pitches, and really 100 is much better.

In what way does Litsch's ERA not reflect his peripherals? I guess now "peripherals" just means "strikeouts", but sounds more sophisticated.

His HR rate is average, his walk rate is a little better than average, his BABIP is .294, so he hasn't been hit-lucky. In fact his BABIP is worse than that of the team as a whole. Since he is very much a groundball pitcher, he has a great GDP rate - it's almost double the league average. He's given up a high number of unearned runs, and he has to take some responsibilty for those runs, but if you do a quick and dirty basic runs created estimate you get the same number of total runs allowed as actual. That's not considering the GDP's. And there's nothing lucky about his hits allowed as noted above. Factoring all that in, his ERA isn't inconsistent with his peripherals.

Now as to whether he is ready to stay in the major league rotation or would do better with some more experience at AAA is something that we will contnue to get evidence on over the rest of the season. But as far as his peripherals are concerned, you have to look at all of them.

 

Sometimes I think Gibbons is intimidated by Halladay, who must carry a lot of clout in the clubhouse, and who never wants to come out of a game. I think this is because so much has gone wrong this year, that Gibbons (subconsciously or otherwise) knows that he's walking on thin ice. Roy's last ten starts:

Six innings: once
Seven innings: twice
Eight innings: three times
Nine innings four times

His pitch counts have consistently up (in the 120s), too.

I think this is incredibly dumb. He's your ace. He's been injured. He's getting older. You're almost certainly out of the race. And, as Rotoworld notes, he hasn't been able to finish the season each of the last two years. You've also watched AJ go down with an injury after a series of high pitch-count starts. So what do you do? You max out your ace every time out, late in the season. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And, as Rotoworld notes, he hasn't been able to finish the season each of the last two years.

I tend to agree that Gibbons is needlessly riding Doc a little hard (though not abusively so), but this is just silly. His broken leg in 2005 didn't have anything to do with throwing a lot of pitches, and last year he only missed his last two starts of the season.

I note, that  not all ball in play defensive measures have John Macdonald stationed as being merely " league average". Dave Gassko (scroll down to the bottom) at the Hardball Times thinks he's having a gold glove season. Checking my Fielding Bible, they have Macdonald at roughly10-12 runs above average in 2005 adjusted up to 150 games playing time. He sure has looked  good subjectively  in the field this past season. I  think  it's better to look at a variety of these measures (Pinto, Dial etc...) once the season is done to try to make a hard conclusion.

I can understand the frustration regarding Macdonald's relatively poor offence, but I hope the team doesn't shoot itself in the foot by ignoring middle infield defence this coming off season. Given the teams propensity to give up lots of ground balls, solid infield defence is quite important to this squad,

I tend to agree with the comments about over using Halliday, although younger pitchers seem  more susceptible to injury, why in a season that should be nothing more than expanded spring training for 2008, would you push the  envelope ( according to B.P. he's third in PAP this season) ?

Groundball pitchers like Litsch ( and to a similar degree C.M. Wang), seem to confound the experts with their peripherals (read low strike-out rates). Has there been any work on this?

BP's metrics have McDonald as a 112 Rate shortstop this year, a 94 last year and a 103 shortstop over his career.  To the best of my knowledge, BP's career number for McDonald is consistent with other metrics.  In projecting how he is likely to do in 2008, the career metric is probably a better indicator than the 2007 performance.  It is unusual for a career best at age 32 to be replicated.

Incidentally, I am pretty sure that Olmedo would have turned the key double play last night, due to his superior arm strength. 

To the best of my knowledge, BP's career number for McDonald is consistent with other metrics.  

B.P. off course uses Davenport translations and does not purchase actual play by play data to formulate their defensive models. Frankly this is a rather outmoded approach given the current state of defensive analysis and I'm somewhat surprised they haven't modernized their approach. I think their numbers provide only a partial picture.

 Quantifying  defensive ability remains difficult,  looking at a myriad of defensive systems over a period of time is my preferred method in making  an educated guess.

UZR had McDonald as a slightly below average defensive shortstop prior to this year.

Mike, how many times are you going to post the same stuff?

We all understand that all your fancy defensive rankings think that JMac is a below average defensive infielder, and we don't care. I have watched every Jay game this season and I am 100% certain that he is an above average SS, and I can't say that I have seen a SS in the AL impress me more this year. Put away all your fancy sabermetrics and open your damn eyes - the guy is a great fielder! Why are you so insistent on talking about the past or trying to predict the future? Enjoy what you have right now, and that's a starting SS who makes a spectacular play almost every single game. Maybe he stinks, and maybe he will regress to his "career norms" and stink defensively next year, and maybe it's true that your man-crush Olmedo is a better defender - but not right now. For now, enjoy the magic that JMac brings on a nightly basis, and check your preconceived notions in at the door.

I like what JMac brings to the highlight reel too but I'm not sure that the UZR ratings lie when they question his defensive wizard reputation. Perhaps it is one of those cases where the fact that making spectacular/memorable plays isn't exactly the same as being a great or even an above average defender.  A play looks spectacular  when a player does something that  is at the limits of his own abilities and it is difficult to insert another player making the same play. Heck, I'm convinced that some of JMac's spectacular plays to his right aren't made by many SS not because they're worse but because they're a routine play when made by a 3B without a bum leg. I love to watch JMac too, but the thought that he may be the team's starting SS next year because of his highlight reel scares the bejeezus out of me, trading a few circus plays seems worth it to know what the team has in Oldmedo.

Oops. Olmedo (I typed my own silly nickname for him instead).

It looks like the organization will stick with John McDonald next year, so we will all get to see whether his fine defensive season in 2007 gets repeated.

Put away all your fancy sabermetrics and open your damn eyes - the guy is a great fielder!

The problem is that Derek Jeter looks like a great fielder and most metrics agree that he really isn't, ( probably because of playing far too shallow, making the routine play in the hole look spectacular ). Sometimes your eyes can deceive you, thus the Holy Grail in trying to measure this stuff. 

At any rate Macdonald's runs/above/below average per 150 games  from different years using a variety of defensive models;

Gassko 2007  +25

Pinto 2005  +27

Dewan 2005 +10

Dial 2006 +1

UZR 2003-2006 -3 ( Did I remember this right Mike?)

BP +3 (career)

Different models, sample size issues (e.g.  he doesn't make the cut in 2004 for Pinto ), who provides your data, players having a good/bad year in the field because of health factors all come into play. Leaning on one model/year exclusively may color ones opinion.
 

probably because of playing far too shallow, making the routine play in the hole look spectacular

That is exactly why Roberto Alomar looked like a great second baseman when he was here.

He wasn't. On grass, yes. But on the turf at the Dome... below average.

In regards to Burnett and his pitch counts. You could probably limit him to 75 pitches and he'll still find the odd stint on the dl.

There is no magic number when it comes to pitch counts. Mechanics, game situations, and heck, even weather, probably have far more factor into arm strain the pitch counts themselves.

As for Halladay. He's a vet now that has avoided elbow problems and can very likely handle high pitch counts since he doesn't wind up in too many jams that he really has to work hard to get out of.

That said, nothing wrong giving these guys some rest here and there, but I'm not about to start frothing at the mouth regarding pitch counts.

Totally ignoring the pitch counts, it was still a bad idea to stick Halladay out there in the 8th. Halladay, having thrown 115 pitches and not at his best, is not better than the bullpen at that point.  Gibbons just wanted to give a "chance for the win" probably, which is dumb...teams win, not pitchers.

The problem is that Derek Jeter looks like a great fielder.

I don't think that anyone that regularly watches the Yankees thinks that Derek Jeter is (or looks like) a "great fielder".

By the way, the Pinto charts for John McDonald (at baseballmusings.com in the Probabilistic Model of Range section) show him as below average for 2004 and slightly above for 2006.    When you combine the overall Pinto ratings for 2004-06, the UZR for 03-06, the Dial rating for 2006, and the BP career rating, you did get an overall picture of a shortstop with slightly better than average range over his career prior to 2007. 

I know we're kind of past this, but Litsch is not that much of an effective groundballer when his k rate is considered - the league's top groundballers, Carmona, Felix, and Wang, get 65, 61, and 58% of their outs on grounders and have K rates of 5.7/9, 8.1/9, and 4.7/9.

Litsch, on the other hand, is at 47.5% and 3.8k/9. THT has his Fielding Independent Pitching at 5.02 though, which is still good enough for a #5 I suppose...especially for a 22 year old who is quick to the plate and fields his position effectively.