Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
What kinds of starting pitchers do the Jays have? And how does it affect their handling of the left field and shortstop positions?


Like Magpie said a couple days ago, most of the Jays' 2008 lineup is locked in. Seven guys - Thomas, Overbay, Hill, Rolen, Rios, Wells and Zaun - are going to be near-everyday players. Five of those guys are good fielders. One is a Respected Veteran catcher, and one is a DH.

And there will probably be two positions where playing time is split: left field, between Reed Johnson and Matt Stairs, and shortstop, between David Eckstein and John McDonald.

When should each of those guys start? That depends on a number of things...

In a platoon situation, the other team's starting pitcher is usually the biggest factor in deciding who starts. And how good you think the players in question are relative to each other will play a role too. But that's not the end of the story. With the '08 Jays, each platoon also contains one player who's a much better fielder than the other. So the Jays' starting pitcher matters too. With a flyball pitcher on the mound, you might be inclined to start Reed in left field, even against a righty; with a pitcher who gets a lot of ground balls, John McDonald's platinum glove looks a bit shinier.

That last thing is what I'm looking at here. I want to put solid numbers on our intuition about what kinds of pitchers the Jays have, relative to each other.

Particularly, in terms of four 'true' outcomes: strikeouts, walks, groundballs, and other stuff.

To do this, I took each pitcher's major-league stats from 2005 to 2007. I also made the following adjustments:
- Intentional walks don't count;
- Bunts don't count. Unfortunately, this leaves out bunts for hits, but I'd rather do that than reward someone who gets tons of telegraphed sac bunts. I called the resulting total batters faced "Real Batters Faced." Because if the pitcher or batter or both weren't trying, who cares?
- HBPs count as walks;
- Last year's stats were given double weight.

Those adjustments probably had no effect, but they help me sleep at night.

I only looked at pitchers who (a) might plausibly start for the team this year and (b) have a reasonable amount of major-league experience so their stats aren't meaningless. That meant Halladay, Burnett, McGowan, Marcum, Janssen, Chacin and Litsch.

Here is what the starters do:

Strikeout rate

1. A.J. Burnett, 23.8%
2. Dustin McGowan, 19.8%
3. Shaun Marcum, 18.7%
4. Roy Halladay, 16.0%
5. Gustavo Chacin, 13.0%
6. Casey Janssen, 12.4%
7. Jesse Litsch, 10.7%

No surprises here.

Walk rate

1. Halladay, 4.7%
2. Janssen, 6.8%
3. Litsch, 8.8%
4. Marcum, 8.9%
5. Chacin, 9.1%
6. McGowan, 9.7%
7. Burnett, 10.0%

Or here.

Groundball rate (per batter!)
- not per ball in play like usual

1. Halladay, 43.7%
2. Janssen, 40.7% !!
3. Litsch, 38.8%
4. Burnett, 36.4%
5. McGowan, 36.2%
6. Chacin, 29.6%
7. Marcum, 28.5%

This is pretty interesting. Roy Halladay being the biggest beneficiary of infield defense should come as no surprise. But I don't think many people would guess that Janssen actually induces more groundballs per batter than Burnett and McGowan and even Litsch. Yet that's the case because even though he's a bit less of a groundball pitcher, Janssen is more aggressive and puts more balls in play. Chacin and Marcum bringing up the rear, on the other hand, is not a surprise. David Eckstein should always start behind those guys.

If Doc and Marcum both face exactly 850 hitters (unlikely, Doc should face more than Marcum) and those groundball rates are accurate-ish, Doc will induce about 129 more groundballs than Marcum. Defense counts!

Bonus non-sequitur! The more I think about it, the more I see Janssen as Doc lite. He throws a lot of different pitches, including a variety of fastballs, and bombards the strike zone. I would avoid pitching those two back-to-back if I could help it. If Litsch cracks the rotation, I'm fine with having him go before or after Doc, since he's more of a trick pitcher. Nobody throws anything quite like Jesse Litsch's sinker. I wouldn't be surprised to see him overtake Janssen in the groundball department in 2008.

FB + LD - IFFB - HR rate (per batter!)
That's a mouthful. It's my way of saying "non-infield-popup, non-homer balls in the air." Or "balls in the air where defense matters." And "HR" is homers assuming the given flyball rate and 11% of all flyballs being homers. I made that adjustment because many of the samples are pretty small.

1. Burnett, 26.1%
2. McGowan, 30.6%
3. Halladay, 31.0%
4. Janssen, 35.1%
5. Litsch, 36.8%
6. Marcum, 37.5%
7. Chacin, 42.1%

Because A.J. can hang with Doc in groundballishness and keeps the ball out of play way more, he beats the crap out of him in the flyball-avoidance department. So outfield defense can be sacrificed behind him with relatively little loss. McGowan and Halladay are significantly behind A.J., but it's much less damaging to play Matt Stairs behind them than it is to inflict him on Chacin.

What's the moral of the story?

Your call. Your opinion of how much McDonald, Eckstein, Johnson and Stairs should play is colored by how much you like each of them. Maybe you hate one of them enough to want to relegate that guy to full-time benchwarming duty. There might be a solid case for doing that. But if you're like me and you think they should all start a reasonable amount, it's important to make sure that they play when it makes the most sense for them to play.

Unless you favor an extreme solution, I think it's hard to disagree with these basic rules:

Reed Johnson starts:
- Against all LHPs. (In other news, I think it's generally a bad idea to skip Doc's turn in the rotation, and Johnny Mac shouldn't pinch-hit much)
- Most of his starts vs RHPs behind Marcum and Chacin, not Doc and McGowan.

Matt Stairs starts:
- Against all RHPs when Burnett starts, and most when McGowan or Doc starts

David Eckstein starts:
- 100% of Marcum and Chacin starts

John McDonald:
- Assuming he's going to start about 25-30% of the time, ideally, he would start twice behind Halladay and once behind Janssen(!!) every 10 games.
- I also think it makes sense to start him when the starting pitcher is in a control slump and could use a little extra confidence in his defense.

The space between the obvious cases is subjective. It's why we watch.

If I had more time... Groundball, K and BB rates are fairly solid stats that don't tend to swing wildly from year to year as a result of luck, but this is still a pretty simplistic exercise. If I had more time, I'd go through Retrosheet or Gameday or somesuch and figure out if any of the starters tend to give up balls in particular directions, too. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of energy. Maybe someday.

If you only take four things away from this exercise in belaboring the obvious, make them:

1. That Casey Janssen benefits from infield defense more than you think, but not quite as much as Doc does
2. That A.J. Burnett's starts are outfielders' holidays
3. That if, perish the thought, John McDonald ever starts behind Shaun Marcum, it is your civic duty to groan hysterically
4. That the Jays have a diverse group of starters who each place a unique set of demands on their defense, and it should affect their day-to-day management.

And...

Bonus! Data Tables

RBF: Real Batters faced
eHR%: Percent of Real Batters that homer. I gave every pitcher an 11% HR/Fly rate, which may be unfair to some pitchers. Except I have no idea who they'd be. If Josh Towers were still here I might nudge his upward a little bit. But he's not, so no ethical dilemma.
eAir%: Percent of Real Batters that will hit a ball in the air that isn't a homer or an infield fly, given the aforementioned 11% HR/Fly. In my reality, that's 89% of flyballs and 100% of line drives.
Note: Infield flies are separate from flyballs.
BIP%: Percent of Real Batters that put the ball in play. 100 - K% - BB% - eHR%.















Roy Halladay RBF K UIBB GB IFFB FB LD K% BB% IFFB% eHR% eAir% GB% BIP%
2005 546 108 23 252 5 84 73 19.8 4.2 0.9 1.7 27.1 46.2 74.1
2006 855 132 34 395 21 131 142 15.4 4.0 2.5 1.7 30.2 46.2 78.9
2007 920 139 48 385 19 191 130 15.1 5.2 2.1 2.3 32.6 41.8 76.5
2008 810 130 38 354 16 149 119 16.0 4.7 2.0 2.0 31.0 43.7 76.7






























A.J. Burnett RBF K UIBB GB IFFB FB LD K% BB% IFFB% eHR% eAir% GB% BIP%
2005 858 198 85 336 10 118 111 23.1 9.9 1.2 1.5 25.2 39.2 65.5
2006 568 118 44 205 14 105 82 20.8 7.7 2.5 2.0 30.9 36.1 69.4
2007 688 176 76 239 15 115 67 25.6 11.0 2.2 1.8 24.6 34.7 61.5
2008 701 167 70 255 14 113 82 23.8 10.0 1.9 1.8 26.1 36.4 64.4






























Dustin McGowan RBF K UIBB GB IFFB FB LD K% BB% IFFB% eHR% eAir% GB% BIP%
2005 203 34 24 65 3 49 28 16.7 11.8 1.5 2.7 35.3 32.0 68.8
2006 140 22 25 40 2 27 24 15.7 17.9 1.4 2.1 34.3 28.6 64.3
2007 698 144 60 262 10 143 79 20.6 8.6 1.4 2.3 29.6 37.5 68.5
2008 435 86 42 157 6 91 53 19.8 9.7 1.4 2.3 30.6 36.2 68.2






























Shaun Marcum RBF K UIBB GB IFFB FB LD K% BB% IFFB% eHR% eAir% GB% BIP%
2005 32 4 4 11 2 6 5 12.5 12.5 6.3 2.1 32.3 34.4 72.9
2006 352 65 39 89 11 104 44 18.5 11.1 3.1 3.3 38.8 25.3 67.2
2007 644 122 53 188 21 176 83 18.9 8.2 3.3 3.0 37.2 29.2 69.7
2008 418 78 37 119 14 116 54 18.7 8.9 3.3 3.0 37.5 28.5 69.2






























Casey Janssen RBF K UIBB GB IFFB FB LD K% BB% IFFB% eHR% eAir% GB% BIP%
2006 396 44 25 172 12 90 52 11.1 6.3 3.0 2.5 33.4 43.4 79.8
2007 293 39 21 114 5 71 43 13.3 7.2 1.7 2.7 36.2 38.9 76.9
2008 327 41 22 133 7 77 46 12.4 6.8 2.2 2.6 35.1 40.7 78.1






























Jesse Litsch RBF K UIBB GB IFFB FB LD K% BB% IFFB% eHR% eAir% GB% BIP%
2007 467 50 41 181 10 119 66 10.7 8.8 2.1 2.8 36.8 38.8 77.7
2008 467 50 41 181 10 119 66 10.7 8.8 2.1 2.8 36.8 38.8 77.7






























Gustavo Chacin RBF K UIBB GB IFFB FB LD K% BB% IFFB% eHR% eAir% GB% BIP%
2005 853 121 75 255 28 218 155 14.2 8.8 3.3 2.8 40.9 29.9 74.1
2006 372 47 42 99 12 112 60 12.6 11.3 3.2 3.3 42.9 26.6 72.8
2007 117 11 8 39 2 38 19 9.4 6.8 1.7 3.6 45.1 33.3 80.2
2008 365 48 33 108 11 102 63 13.0 9.1 3.0 3.1 42.1 29.6 74.7

The credit section: Stats are from Fangraphs.
Pitching and Defense | 59 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Excalabur - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 08:53 AM EST (#179193) #
Very Nice.

I'd start McDonald behind Janssen every time too, but that's just me.   If Janssen's still in the back of the bullpen, it seems to be a damn good idea to put McD in for Eck every time we have the lead.  We'll see if Gibbons can stick to that.

The only thing I have a quibble with is that you've subtracted out HR from the FB: while this seems like a good idea, the number of flyballs that go for a homerun off a given pitcher seems to be mostly a function of luck, park, and opposition.

Alex Obal - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 09:05 AM EST (#179194) #
Oops. What I actually did, and failed to mention at the time, was make a constant 11% of all flyballs homers. So it actually has no effect at all. Nice catch.

Mike Green - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 09:37 AM EST (#179196) #
The other element of the equation concerns the typical location of ground balls and fly balls by batter handedness.  Ground balls tend to be pulled.  Fly ball outs (as opposed to homers) tend to go the opposite way.  Because Marcum will face more left-handed hitters than a left-hand pitcher, it is doubly important for him to have the better defender in left-field and much less important for him to have the better defensive shortstop.  The fact that he's a great defender himself and takes away many of the balls up the middle makes it a clean sweep. 

What precisely is the difference offensively between Johnson and Stairs vs. RHP?  Here is what ZIPS and Marcel say for 2008?


Johnson-ZIPS .272/.341/.400
Johnson-Marcel .280/.340/.416
Stairs- ZIPS .253/.336/.434
Stairs-Marcel .260/.340/.450

The presumption appears to be that Stairs will get about 2/3 of his at-bats against right-handed pitching (as he has in the rest of his career), and that Johnson will get about 2/3 of his at-bats against left-handed pitching.  Johnson's projections are almost identical to his career line.  It would be reasonable to suggest that both ZIPS and Marcel are projecting a .267/.328/.383 line against right-handed pitching.  In the case of Stairs, the projections are (unsurprisingly for a 40 year old) 25-35 points off his career norm for on-base percentage and 40-50 points off his career norm for slugging percentage.  This suggests a projection against right-handed pitching of roughly .265/.345/.480.

As for Eckstein and McDonald, here is the projection scorecard:

Eckstein-ZIPS .289/.348/.352
Eckstein-Marcel .290/.350/.380
McDonald-ZIPS .244/.289/.312
McDonald-Marcel .250/.300/.350

Eckstein gives you 50 points more of OBP and 30-40 points of slugging.  But, you knew that.

Nicely done, Alex.
John Northey - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 09:53 AM EST (#179197) #
Interesting study and I'd assume most ML teams would do something like this to help know who should start when.

Obviously knowing which side of the infield groundballs go to for Janssen and Halladay would be vital in deciding if McDonald should start or not.

An oddball stat is how each pitcher does with each catcher. I say this because I just looked at B-R to see if it had info on which side ground balls went to for each pitcher (it doesn't) and saw the by catcher stats for Janssen. Figures are career wise. I skipped guys with under 10 PA's.

Janssen with...
Thigpen: 136 OPS+ against (just 16 PA)
Zaun: 108 OPS+ against
Molina: 104 OPS+ against
Phillips: 67 OPS+ against
Fasano: 41 OPS+ against (31 PA)

While massive sample size error would exist it sure screams out why Thigpen is being moved to 2B/1B while Fasano was signed.

Before going too far though here are the splits for Litsch... (98+ PA's each)
Phillips: 117 OPS+ against
Thigpen: 94 OPS+ against
Zaun: 86 OPS+ against

The power kid while I'm at it (McGowan)...
Huckaby: 238 (51 PA)
Molina: 162 (36 PA)
Phillips: 109 (170 PA)
Fasano: 100 (74 PA)
Zaun: 87 (674 PA)
Quiroz: 74 (48 PA)

And finally Marcum...
Molina: 175 (111 PA)
Thigpen: 119 (106 PA)
Zaun: 102 (592 PA)
Phillips: 52 (233 PA)

Wow. For some reason with Phillips back there Marcum was a world beater vs just average with anyone else or horrid with Molina. Would be interesting to dig in more and see what teams he faced with Molina or Phillips back there just to see if there is something there.

The two Molina caught sucked with him back there suggesting Molina was not a good catcher to use with kids on the mound. Phillips worked good with Janssen and Marcum but not well with the others. Does it mean anything? Probably not but some of those spreads with over 100 PA's were fairly large and I'd check into it if I was on the Jays. Perhaps for certain pitch mixes you need certain catchers? I know many see catcher/pitcher stats as garbage but given the Jays are holding Thigpen back due to his receiving skills one has to think there is something there expecially where younger pitchers are concerned.
China fan - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 10:00 AM EST (#179198) #
   Very interesting research.   A couple of questions.  First, should Janssen's numbers be adjusted to reflect the fact that he was pitching in relief, whereas the others were all starters?   Second, would it be fair to conclude from this exercise (especially the groundball numbers) that Litsch might be a better pitcher than conventionally assumed?   Looking at his impressive numbers for groundballs and walks, I would take away an impression that he has some underestimated skills, and that he might have a better-than-assumed chance of making the rotation in 2008.   Is this reasonable?
Mike Green - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 10:16 AM EST (#179199) #
Chinafan, compare the walk, K and GB rates of Litsch and Janssen.  It's easy to see which one is the better pitcher now.  I like Jesse Litsch, but you can tell from the W/K that he needs a few months in the pen, or if you do not subscribe to the Earl Weaver approach, to a few months in Syracuse.
Jonathan - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 10:49 AM EST (#179200) #
The statistic differentials between the Jays participants in LF and SS means we can look forward to the possibility of effective platooning in 2008. 

It seems there has been less use of the platoon across MLB in recent years, even though it can prove a collective solution to a position at a relative bargain.  While OBP and defense are two measurements that have come and been hyped as the "Moneyball" ideal (in this, I mean, finding metrics that are relatively undervalued), reverting to the use of a platoon may see legs yet; Gibbon's effective use of these two would surely raise the possibility of doing so again in future years where an ideal single player cannot be developed, traded for or signed. 

I'd much rather see the effective use of a platoon at a bargain price than a GM going out to sign an "agin veteran (such as Geoff Jenkins, Randy Winn or Nomar Garciaparra) as a stopgap solution that promises more than can deliver.
Chuck - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 11:07 AM EST (#179203) #
It seems there has been less use of the platoon across MLB in recent years

Likely a byproduct of 12-man pitching staffs.
Excalabur - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 11:25 AM EST (#179204) #
Likely a byproduct of 12-man pitching staffs.

By which you mean 10-man pitching staffs with two guys to carry the drinks, mostly. 

This is the part that really confuses me about the 12-man (or the even more loony 13-man) pen: the last guy out there never freaking does anything.  If fatigue (or whatever) is a problem, you can call the guy up, but surely letting him pitch regularly in AAA is more useful for keeping him in game shape then carrying around the snack backpack, no?
Chuck - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 11:35 AM EST (#179205) #
Back in the day, we referred to the guy at the end of the bench as the cooler guard.
Mike Green - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 12:05 PM EST (#179206) #
Speaking of defence, the Rockies apparently have agreed with Tulowitzki on a six year, $30 million contract extension.  It apparently includes a team option for 2013, although dollars for the team option have not been referred to.

They are effectively buying out his age 28 free agency year at $10-$15 million, leaving aside the option, in exchange for the insurance cost on the remainder of the contract.  That's a good bet in my book.  In an alternate universe, the Tulowitzki/Hill/Rios combination down the middle would have been giving the home nine fine offence and defence down the middle at a reasonable price until 2012.  Oh well.

John Northey - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 12:42 PM EST (#179208) #
There is a lot of talk of how useless the 12 man is vs 11 or 10 man staffs. Are they? Is that 11/12th man left alone to dream of pitching someday?

Last year the starters for the Jays had 23 relief appearances, 13 for Marcum and 10 for Towers. The 15 guys listed in the pen (using B-R) had a total of 4 starts, none of whom cracked 11 IP total on the season.

So we had a fairly pure starter/reliever mix (as pure as we're likely to see). Using ESPN I can get clean splits on one screen which helps further.

The pen had 450 IP total. 5 guys cracked 50 IP (Janssen, Accardo, Tallet, Downs, Frasor). Wolfe had 45 1/3, then came the rest. So a 6 man pen was definately in use and fully used (especially given Wolfe & Tallet spent time in AAA). What about that 7th man? Towers was at 21 IP, Marcum and League both cracked 10. The remaining 7 guys were under 10 IP apiece. Net IP for all '7th men', many of whom were 5th & 6th at times? 87 2/3 IP in relief.

Huh. Those 7th guys pitched more innings than the #1 guy for IP in the pen (Janssen at 72 2/3).

Now, I know what many are thinking. Those 7th guys were also #4/5/6 at times in the depth chart due to injuries, poor choices by managment (Zambrano?) and other stuff. The point though is that the 6th/7th guys did get a lot of innings on the season and going with a 12 man staff may not be as bad an idea as it seems. Plus it wasn't just due to Gibbons going nuts with 1 hitter per pitcher stuff as only Downs and League had 10+ IP with fewer IP than G while the guys who had less than a full games worth of innings had 3 cases of it (Ryan, Zambrano due to ineffectiveness, plus Kennedy).

A better study would dig into game situations and see if the team ever used the 7th man or if the extras got those innings just due to injures/etc. Still, a 6 man pen is a must I'd say from these stats and given our current staff I think it could make sense (who do you cut from Ryan/Accardo/Downs/Frasor/Tallet/Wolfe to get to a 5 man pen, or mix in League and Janssen depending on how spring goes plus rule 5 guy).
Mylegacy - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 01:14 PM EST (#179209) #

Alex, you haven't received enough praise for your article - so - Great Work!

Only one concern. Using your stats I still can't calculate the odds on me drawing a straight on the turn or the river.  Where are the mathematicians when you really need them.

Thomas - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 01:17 PM EST (#179210) #
Very nice work, Alex.

Does anyone know what the major league average is for groundball rate for a pitcher, by the way?
HollywoodHartman - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 01:22 PM EST (#179212) #
Big ups! But should it be considered that Janssen's overall effectiveness will go down as a starter? The odds are he would not throw as hard or accurate every pitch if he had to focus on throwing 100 instead of around 10. This could lead to his pitches being left up in the zone or flat more often. I'm not sure how this would effect him but I think it would.
Thomas - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 01:24 PM EST (#179213) #
A better study would dig into game situations and see if the team ever used the 7th man or if the extras got those innings just due to injures/etc.

John, that's something I started compiling in August or September and then the project got put on the back-burner for some reason I forgot and I never picked it up. Later this evening I'll check and see if I still have the remnants on my computer, but I'm not optimistic. I might look into it again, but what I remember from my preliminary research was that the 7th man was getting work and a bit more than I thought, but that there were only a few times where it was unavoidable* he pitched (i.e. the team couldn't have brought in another reliever).

*Unavoidable meaning with that current construction of the bullpen if was hard to see another pitcher coming into the game, but of course if the bullpen actually only had 6 men then Gibbons would manage it differently or you might be sure to have a Litsch-type who could go several innings or Tallet might be stretched on occasion, etc... etc...

Alex Obal - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 01:31 PM EST (#179214) #
Thanks guys.

Does anyone know what the major league average is for groundball rate for a pitcher, by the way?
- Using the league averages at the Hardball Times, I got something in the neighborhood of 33.2%. Unfortunately that's for both starters and relievers, and it includes bunts.

But should it be considered that Janssen's overall effectiveness will go down as a starter? The odds are he would not throw as hard or accurate every pitch if he had to focus on throwing 100 instead of around 10. - Yup. Strange thing is, his GB rate per batter actually dropped from 43.4 as a starter in '07 to 38.9 as a reliever last year. No clue why but with nothing to go on I'd expect something in the middle this year.
ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 01:32 PM EST (#179215) #
I agree entirely John.  As you show the 7th man does get used and there can often be the need for arms in the pen.

Something else to consider is the effect of the absence of that additional player in the bullpen or on the bench.  In the case of a bullpen, if you need another pitcher and don't have one, you have to overwork one of your other players, which will either make them unavailable for a few days in the best case or injured and gone for a while in the worst case.  In the case of pinch-hitting/running/fielding, no such problems exist.

Adtionally, with the way this roster, and most, are constructed, I don't see a place for much of a bench.  The days of the all-glove, no-hit player are mostly over (Johnny Mac being an exception), and with that, the usefulness/need of pinch-hitters.  Nowadays, if you have someone that is good enough to pinch-hit for someone else, you swap them when filling out your line-up card, not in the 6th inning.

The running game has (rightly) been de-emphasized versus years past, so pinch-running is only so useful now as well.  If you're primarily playing station-to-station ball, speed doesn't help you nearly as often (and double-plays are caused by the hitter, not the guy already on base).

Finally, I think players need to play in order to stay fresh/effective and it's easier to find lower-leverage situations for bullpen arms than it is for position players.  If we want Scutaro to get some action at third, he really needs to start a game in order for it to be worthwhile (coming in for the 8th/9th inning doesn't guarantee any fielding or batting opportunities - assuming he starts in the field).  Conversely, every few days, there is the opportunity to get someone from your pen to pitch where you just need innings, not results.

I'm thinking Dewayne Wise versus Corey Thurman here - an ineffective outfielder versus an ineffective reliever.  Thurman still managed to get 60+ innings, but Wise hardly touched the field.  I think both players would have been better served in the minors that year, but I'm using their workload to show how it's easier to get action for pitchers than it is for hitters.
John Northey - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 02:09 PM EST (#179216) #
hmmm... how much was the hitting bench used last year? Numbers via ESPN and Baseball-Reference

We have the starting 9, then 4 backups leaving everyone else as the 14th/15th man on the bench.

14 players had 100+ AB's last year, the lowest being Thigpen at 101 AB's. The two ahead of him were Royce Clayton (189) and Jason Phillips (144) both of whom were dumped mid-season.

The '15th' man slot had 9 players totaling 347 AB's, so the 14/15th slot had a total of 447 AB's. Quite a few more than I expected. Kind of points out how valuable depth is, just like the bullpen bit did.

Checking for details we had 3 catchers for awhile with Thigpen kicking around but overall the non-Zaun catchers were 3 deep with a total of 225 horrid AB's (they all were 544 or worse for OPS while catching).

1B was Overbay/Stairs plus Thigpen (43 AB) and 19 AB's for 3 others

2B was Hill and 16 AB's for 3 others

3B was Glaus and 192 AB's for 8 others (49 the max AB's for Adams)

SS was McDonald, Clayton, plus 52 AB's for 3 others (mainly Olmedo at 46 AB's)

LF was Lind, Johnson, Stairs, and 2 AB's for Roberts
CF was Wells, 75 AB's for Rios, and 3 for Johnson
RF was Rios, 45 AB for Stairs, 33 for Johnson, and 9 for JFGriffen with Luna getting a game in there too (0 PA)

DH was Thomas, 15 AB's for Stairs, and 14 AB's for a cast of thousands (OK, just 12 who mainly ran for Thomas and Stairs I suspect).

What does this tell us?

We need 2 regular catchers plus a AAA backup for injuries

The infield, despite injuries to Glaus & Overbay and an ineffective Clayton still needed just Stairs and a good backup for third mixed with McDonald

The outfield was Wells/Rios plus 3 guys splitting left with the rest barely getting to swing a bat

DH was Thomas, Stairs, and a batch of pinch runners.

Thus outside of injury replacements all we really needed was the bench we have now - two guys splitting short, two behind the plate, a backup for third who can take a game or two at 2B, and Stairs for LF/1B/DH duties mixed with Johnson in the outfield to give Wells/Rios a rest. Lind is at AAA for injury insurance for the outfield/1B/DH (since Rios & Johnson can cover CF) while McDonald/Eckstein/Hill/Rios/Scurato cover 2B/SS/3B unless 2 major injuries occur.

I really can see how a 12 man pitching staff makes sense here. 80 IP equals more than 300 AB's and that is what the 7th guy will get there vs the 400 AB's our 14/15th guys got mainly when injuries happened. As ChicagoJaysFan said a bullpen arm can get work a lot easier than a 14th hitter can. Thus going short on the hitting bench shouldn't hurt as much as going short on pitching depth (in the majors) would. When injuries happen (and they will) we want guys who are ready to jump in and I suspect a pitcher can jump in easier than a hitter.

Funny thing is this all suggests a 24 or even 23 man roster would probably be more ideal than the current 25 man one (11 pitchers and 13 hitters, maybe 10 pitchers) with callups occuring more often.
Alex Obal - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 02:11 PM EST (#179217) #
The Jays are one team that might really benefit from having a powerful lefty pinch-hit specialist and an abundance of utilitymen. Their shortstop spot is kind of weak offensively. And, as the #1 or #9 hitter, it's likely to be behind two pretty good OBPs in Hill and Zaun. So it'll get plenty of RBI situations, strangely enough.

If, against a RHP, David Eckstein comes up with the game on the line, pinch-hitting Adam Lind would bring a considerable offensive improvement, and bringing John McDonald in for D would bring a big defensive lift. If, against a RHP, John McDonald comes up with the game on the line, the offensive upgrade to Lind would be very large, and Eckstein and Scutaro are on the bench. (OK Scutaro's shortstop glove isn't very good, but when McDonald's bat is the alternative...)

If a LOOGY comes in to face Lind in either of those hypotheticals, you have Marco Scutaro, and maybe Reed Johnson too, to take the platoon edge back.

Since the Jays' bench has no lefty bats, except for Stairs, I don't think it complements their everyday lineup very well. Particularly in the case of Scutaro - when is he going to play? I can't see him starting much at second. He will rarely start at short, since the Jays will struggle enough finding playing time for McDonald. I don't think Rolen will take kindly to getting days off,. The Jays already have three lefty-mashing outfielders who I imagine are all better fielders than Scutaro. And when will he ever pinch-hit for anyone? Scutaro is a really good utilityman, but until the injuries start he's going to look a bit out of place here. Replacing the 7th pitcher with Lind would increase Scutaro's value to the team.

Though the point about players needing to play to stay fresh is a good one. Lind could give Wells, Rios and Thomas the occasional day off against RHPs, in light of Rios' ability to play center... I think the Jays could sneak Lind into their lineup often if they wanted to, and the once-a-weekish rest that Rios, Thomas and Wells would get would be a nice bonus.
Alex Obal - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 02:21 PM EST (#179218) #
Also, the obvious punch line that I can't believe I didn't mention: Scutaro is a righty hitter. Everyone who plays a position he's good at is righthanded and an excellent fielder. I guess he could easily get two starts a week, one spelling Hill and one spelling Rolen, ideally against lefties when the offense is very potent already. And rest is good - as I implied in saying that Lind could help keep Wells and Rios fresh. So I take back the implication that Scutaro's at all useless. His versatility is a big plus.
Mike Green - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 02:40 PM EST (#179219) #
Not to mention that Lind is a much better defensive outfielder than Stairs, so when you give Thomas a rest, you can put Lind in left-field and have Stairs DHing.
ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 02:49 PM EST (#179220) #
I think Lind still has to prove he can hit AAA pitching before we grant him a job in the majors.  He did ok last year, but didn't exactly light up AAA while he was down there.  He still hasn't played 100 games at the AAA level yet so I think he still has some time there before we start saying that he'll hit better than guys already on the team.

With a great spring or a hot start to AAA, I could see Lind in the majors very early, but right now, he's the 5th OF in my mind (Wells, Rios, Stairs, Johnson), 3rd 1B, and way down on the DH list (Thomas plus any of Rolen, Rios, Overbay, or Stairs that need a rest).  With Stairs offering a similar package to Lind, I don't see the room for Lind in this line-up.  Lind is actually a solid example for why I like more arms in the pen versus the bench.
ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 03:03 PM EST (#179221) #
If, against a RHP, David Eckstein comes up with the game on the line, pinch-hitting Adam Lind would bring a considerable offensive improvement, and bringing John McDonald in for D would bring a big defensive lift. If, against a RHP, John McDonald comes up with the game on the line, the offensive upgrade to Lind would be very large, and Eckstein and Scutaro are on the bench. (OK Scutaro's shortstop glove isn't very good, but when McDonald's bat is the alternative...)

I don't have the time today to go and look up as in-depth as I would like, but that seems to be a very rare occurrence, with only a slight improvement, and not worth carrying an extra man on the roster.

First, Eckstein doesn't have a huge split difference.  His OBP is still .350 against RHP for his career.  Lind didn't get on base at all well against RHP so you'd really only want Lind in there if you need power over getting on-base - something like a runner on 2nd with no outs or a runner on 3rd with one out.

So now we're looking for carrying another player on our roster for situations where it's the 6th inning or later, Eckstein comes up, we're tied or trail by 1 or 2 runs, have a runner in scoring position with less than 2 outs, there is a righty on the mound, and Stairs, Overbay, and Thomas are unavailable to pinch-hit.  Unless all of those factors are true, I don't see there being a big reason to pinch-hit Lind for Eckstein (everything minus the scoring position requirements is the same if Johnny Mac is on-deck).  This is where I'd like to have time to go through some of the game sheets to see how frequently something like this actually happens.  To me, it just doesn't seem like we'd need to do that roster move all that often.
Mike Green - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 03:04 PM EST (#179222) #
Well, that is what the club says anyways.  Lind has had 329 PAs in Syracuse and hit .336/.386/.519 there.  He turned 24 this past July. 

There is a reason to send Lind down to Syracuse, I suppose.  He does need the playing time, and with his struggles in 2007, starting the season with a Johnson/Stairs platoon in left-field is reasonable enough and would squeeze Lind out of the playing time he needs to develop as he ought to.

Alex Obal - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 03:28 PM EST (#179223) #
This is where I'd like to have time to go through some of the game sheets to see how frequently something like this actually happens.  To me, it just doesn't seem like we'd need to do that roster move all that often.

Yeah, that'd be interesting. I see it the other way. Because you'd only make this move in high-leverage situations, even if this only comes up 20 or 25 times a year, why not do it? All it costs you is a Brian, and it keeps your righty sluggers well-rested while getting Lind major-league at-bats.

I didn't fully appreciate just how not good Lind was last year though. .238/.278/.400 in the majors, .251/.289/.420 against righties, many strikeouts, not so many walks. Ouch. .299/.353/.471 in Syracuse. If Lind's really a .290 OBP guy against righties, I'll take Eckstein, thanks. In light of those numbers, maybe it does make sense to start him out in Syracuse and build his confidence against AAA pitching. I figure at some point you're going to have to turn him loose and let him figure out major-league pitching in the Show, though, and I'd hate to see the Jays just let him waste away in Syracuse if he's OPSing .900 on May 1. There has to be a point where being a star in AAA stops developing you, right?
Wildrose - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 03:50 PM EST (#179224) #
Good stuff Alex, I've never seen this approach used before, very informative. In terms of where the ball is hit, this site provides basic information in a visual form ( scroll down).

Also, I'm always harping about combining various defensive metrics to try to get the best answer regarding defensive prowess, this guy does all the work for us for 2007  ( have to love the internet).

greenfrog - Monday, January 21 2008 @ 07:50 PM EST (#179232) #
Very impressive, Alex. And clearly set out. Can somebody email a copy of this thread to Gibby (and cc JP while they're at it)?

Personally, I love the idea of McDonald being Halladay's personal SS. An efficient, ground-ball machine on the mound, and Rolen/McDonald/Hill/Overbay behind him? Wow.

TamRa - Tuesday, January 22 2008 @ 05:47 AM EST (#179238) #
Good work.

I only skimmed the thread so maybe someone else has asked BUT...when you move to the offensive side of the ball, does the maximization of the defense not lead to an inordinate amount of games in which you have both leadoff hitters playing the same day and other games when you have no really obvious lead-off hitter in the lineup at all (Games when Staris is in Left and McDonald is at ss)?


CaramonLS - Tuesday, January 22 2008 @ 01:53 PM EST (#179240) #

Alex, could you print this off and hand deliver it to Gibby?  Please?

Maybe we could get a lineup card going for him too.

Thomas - Tuesday, January 22 2008 @ 06:00 PM EST (#179244) #
I'm thinking Dewayne Wise versus Corey Thurman here - an ineffective outfielder versus an ineffective reliever. Thurman still managed to get 60+ innings, but Wise hardly touched the field. I think both players would have been better served in the minors that year, but I'm using their workload to show how it's easier to get action for pitchers than it is for hitters.

A couple of things here. I'd quibble with calling Thurman ineffective. His peripherals may not have been great, but he did have a 106 ERA+ so he was getting the job done at least adequately. Plus, he was an incredibly nice guy.

Second, it depends which Wise season you are comparing to Thurman. If you are talking about 2002, he had 112 at-bats after being called-up in the middle of July. Over a full season he's going to double that at-bat total and end up with nearly 250. That's significantly closer to Thurman's 68 innings over the same season. Furthermore, Wise was behind Stewart, Wells, Cruz and Mondesi (until he was traded) in the depth-chart. Phelps occupied the DH role from midseason onwards. Wise didn't have an obvious platoon partner or way to get playing time, aside from when Cruz didn't play from August 10 to September 14.

There's still a role for five-man benches, but the team's front office has to keep that goal in mind when finding their bench players. The Jays have done a good job with that as the team needs a backup catcher, Stairs makes an excellent platoon-mate for Johnson and the Eckstein/McDonald combo was worth it when you consider the contract the team was able to sign Eckstein to. Scutaro works as an all-purpose backup and as Obal points out, the one thing that is missing is a left-handed bat off the bench, which is completely absent on days when Stairs starts.

scottt - Tuesday, January 22 2008 @ 06:33 PM EST (#179245) #
A bench of Macdonald, Johnson, Scutaro and some veteran catcher seriously limits the strategy.

The Yankees will have Betemit and maybe Duncan on the bench.

I've read in the local paper that Boston is considering Brad Wilkerson to replace Hinske.

Maybe it's for the best, with Gibbons behind the bench and all...


ChicagoJaysFan - Tuesday, January 22 2008 @ 09:23 PM EST (#179246) #

Thomas, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think I must have misled you in what I meant to imply with the Thurman / Wise example.  I was using those two to demonstrate the relative ease of getting a pitcher some work versus a batter (I used them in support of my "freshness" reason).  As such, I was comparing each player's rule 5 year (2000 for Wise), where they were forced to remain on the roster, even though each was overmatched (Thurman's peripherals and the fact that most of the time he entered a game one team already had a lead of 4 or more demonstrate that he wasn't getting batters out and his manager had no confidence in him).  If you're a believer in ERA+ for relievers (and there are many that agree with you), I'm not going to try and convince you of its deficiencies in this discussion (and there are many that agree with me that it's useless for relievers).  The other years in their career don't demonstrate ease of getting an overmatched player in the game because if they were on the roster in other years, it was due to merit, not Rule 5 concerns.  Essentially, what I was showing, which is probably intuitive, is that it's easier to find time to get a pitcher some decent work in a game that doesn't matter, than it is to get a batter an equivalent workload (enough to keep his timing on).

I still disagree with the need for a 5-man bench and having a lefty on the bench when Stairs is playing doesn't sway me.  I just don't see why we'd want a lefty on the bench that isn't good enough to start when the other team starts a right-handed pitcher.
Thomas - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 12:26 PM EST (#179257) #

Thomas, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think I must have misled you in what I meant to imply with the Thurman / Wise example.  I was using those two to demonstrate the relative ease of getting a pitcher some work versus a batter (I used them in support of my "freshness" reason).  As such, I was comparing each player's rule 5 year (2000 for Wise), where they were forced to remain on the roster, even though each was overmatched

The problem with using Wise's 2000 year is that the Jays stashed Wise on the DL for half the year. He didn't play a game between June 5 and September 1 (coincidentally the day the roster expanded). Wise didn't accumulate 22 at-bats in a full season, although extrapolating it to 50 isn't a strong argument either.

 (Thurman's peripherals and the fact that most of the time he entered a game one team already had a lead of 4 or more demonstrate that he wasn't getting batters out and his manager had no confidence in him).  If you're a believer in ERA+ for relievers (and there are many that agree with you), I'm not going to try and convince you of its deficiencies in this discussion (and there are many that agree with me that it's useless for relievers).  The other years in their career don't demonstrate ease of getting an overmatched player in the game because if they were on the roster in other years, it was due to merit, not Rule 5 concerns. 

I'm not arguing that ERA+ is the best way to classify a reliever's performance and I apologize if I gave you that impression. I certainly don't believe that. Neither do I beleive it's useless, as you argue. It was simply a quick-and-dirty way of showing that Thurman's performance in 2000 wasn't terrible, like you claimed. He may not have been likely to repeat it going forward and he may have been lucky, but his performance wasn't terrible, imo. Anyway, this a side discussion. Thurman wasn't one of the four best pitchers in that pen for most of the year, nor is ERA+ the best way to look at a reliever's performance. I would just like to point out the infrequency of Thurman's appearances and the low-leverage in which he often pitched can also show that his innings wouldn't be that hard to replace internally.

Essentially, what I was showing, which is probably intuitive, is that it's easier to find time to get a pitcher some decent work in a game that doesn't matter, than it is to get a batter an equivalent workload (enough to keep his timing on). I still disagree with the need for a 5-man bench and having a lefty on the bench when Stairs is playing doesn't sway me.  I just don't see why we'd want a lefty on the bench that isn't good enough to start when the other team starts a right-handed pitcher.

I agreee with your general point, but not your conclusion. All things being equal, you can probably find more time to get a 7th reliever work than a 5th man on the bench. (But getting that 7th man work can also have costs if you have a strong and durable rotation that is going through an injury-free spell, which is entirely possible with Doc, Burnett and McGowan. But yeah, all things being equal the odds are one will have a shorter start and in combination with Marcum and Litsch/Janssen you can make it work with seven in the pen, as the Jays have shown the last few years.) However, I don't see any reason why that 5th man on the bench can't be more useful than a 7th reliever. It just depends who your starters are and how you construct the bench. It wouldn't be that hard for the Jays to find a 5th man they could give at-bats and that could outweight the 60 innings that your 7th guy pitches.

This appears to just be a disagreement about how best to use the 25th roster spot. You think a 7th reliever is better in most circumstances. I think a 5th position player is better most of the time. I do think there are occasions where the team can construct a roster and have a 7th reliever be better than a 5th bench player, but I don't think it should be the default arrangement like it's become with the Jays.

John Northey - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 12:56 PM EST (#179258) #
With the 25th man a good way to see how much a rule 5 pick can get to play is to look at the '85 Jays. Two rule 5 guys were on the club all season long - Manny Lee and Lou Thornton. One was the infield backup (mainly for the few innings Tony Fernandez took off and to give Garcia a rest now and then) while the other was the 5th outfielder/pinch runner. As I recall both were on the active roster every day that season, never DL'ed. Thornton got into 56 games and had 75 ugly plate appearances (58 OPS+). Manny Lee had more games played, 64, but had even fewer PA's - 43 (thankfully few given his 20 OPS+ and 0 RBI).

Lee went on to make over $5 million in his career as a regular 2B/SS (Texas signed him to a really dumb contract after the '92 WS). Thornton had a total of 18 more plate appearances in his career.

Bottom line? Neither played much or had much impact when they had the slots that could've gone to an 11th and 12th pitcher. 118 plate appearances, a few defensive replacement/pinch running situations (27 runs scored between them, 2 stolen bases and 4 caught stealings). I really have trouble seeing them being more valuable than a 12th pitcher who gets 40 IP on the season. It did help having an outfield that played 150+ each (19 games missed total between the big 3) and a SS who didn't miss a game. The starting 8 had 130+ games each while the DH was a mess (Burroughs/Aikens to start, then Matuszek, then Oliver, then Johnson mixed in plus Cecil Fielder) but the bench didn't hurt that area.
Chuck - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 01:20 PM EST (#179260) #
It wouldn't be that hard for the Jays to find a 5th man they could give at-bats and that could outweight the 60 innings that your 7th guy pitches.

I am in full agreement with Thomas' position. With respect to the passage above, a good chunk of those 60 innings that reliever #7 would log are often logged by him specifically because he is on the roster in the first place ("let's throw the poor dog a bone and let him get some innings in") rather then because of circumstances that legitimately press him into duty.
ChicagoJaysFan - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 01:40 PM EST (#179261) #
It wouldn't be that hard for the Jays to find a 5th man they could give at-bats and that could outweight the 60 innings that your 7th guy pitches.

    I am in full agreement with Thomas' position. With respect to the passage above, a good chunk of those 60 innings that  reliever #7 would log are often logged by him specifically because he is on the roster in the first place ("let's throw the poor dog a bone and let him get some innings in") rather then because of circumstances that legitimately press him into duty.

Chuck - you and Thomas are both arguing against a position that I never took (using Corey Thurman's 60 innings as proof that a 7th reliever is more valuable than a 5th bench player).  I said it is easier to keep a 7th bullpen arm fresh than it is to keep a 5th bench player fresh and used them as an example of how you can find low-leverage situations to use relievers versus bench players (I swear I just wrote that last paragraph a little while ago as well).  Your entire comment agrees with me in that it's easier to find uses for a reliever when it doesn't matter.  I'll remind you of my lead-in to the Corey Thurman discussion:

Finally, I think players need to play in order to stay fresh/effective and it's easier to find lower-leverage situations for bullpen arms than it is for position players.

I'm not going to re-hash my reasons that are stated earlier in the thread (and John Northey presented some great ones as well) as to why I think a 7th reliever is more valuable than a 5th bench player.

If someone else wants to prove that Dewayne Wise was more valuable than Corey Thurman, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to respond to it and you'll have to read this comment to understand why.
Chuck - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 02:19 PM EST (#179262) #
Bottom line? Neither played much or had much impact when they had the slots that could've gone to an 11th and 12th pitcher.

John, it's clear that there are two intransigent camps on this issue, so I am not naively trying to sway you (or CJF) to my side. Still, the examples you cited were rule 5 guys who were only on the major league roster because the rules dictate that they be. In both cases, Toronto would have gladly shipped these guys off to AAA. The bench player that I would support the Jays using in lieu of a 7th reliever would be a halfway useful major league body, not a Lou Thornton.
John Northey - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 02:24 PM EST (#179263) #
I think a good point for the 24th/25th man is what Earl Weaver used to go by. If the manager doesn't have a role, or can't trust that player to fill a role then that player is not worth having.

Weaver used this for his 9-10 man pitching staff. He wanted a 4-5 man rotation and 4-5 in the pen, feeling that he wouldn't have a role for anyone else. His 6-7 guys on the bench would include platoon mates for guys, defensive replacements, and pinch runners who he fully trusted to execute their roles and who he had clear roles for.

Gibbons, like most modern managers, has found that pinch runners, pinch hitters and defensive replacements have little value in a high offensive era, especially in a DH league. Whereas the value of having multiple relievers is much higher due to the 6-7 inning max starters tend to go (vs the 7-8 they went in Weavers day).

In the Jays pen for 2007 we had a closer (Accardo), 8th inning setup (Janssen), LOOGY (Downs), 7th inning setup (Frasor), backup LOOGY (Tallet), and pre 7th inning/provide rest (Wolfe). The 7th guy would be used to provide rest when Wolfe wasn't available (tired/used already) or a blowout occured. Very clear roles where each guy could get a few innings a week with little effort. On the bench we had our backup LF/1B/DH in Stairs (Johnson/Lind alternated regular duty in LF with one hurt or in AAA when the other was up outside of September), backup infielder (first McDonald, then when McDonald became everyday a mix-match of AAA'ers), backup catcher (Phillips/Fasano), and overall backup (Thigpen) or whoever was getting MLB pension building time. The bench pretty much sat and waited, rarely getting playing time unless an injury occured (Overbay, Glaus, Johnson) or someone was ineffective (Lind, Clayton, all catcher backups). Pinch running situations existed sometimes (Zaun, Thomas, Overbay), pinch hitting too (SS, CA when the backup was in) but rarely was a defensive sub needed (only for Stairs really). So what purpose did a bench hitter/fielder/runner have? Not much. What playing opportunity? Not much. Just Stairs had lots of opportunity and that was largely due to a platoon with Johnson or injury cover for Overbay.

Here in Toronto, as much as I hate to say it as I hate the multiple pitching changes, it just makes sense to go with 7 pitchers in the pen and a short bench. I'd like Thigpen on it due to his versitility (CA/2B/1B) but in truth it wouldn't be used much. Hmm... wonder who the emergency catcher will be in 2008?
John Northey - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 02:37 PM EST (#179264) #
Chuck, good point on how the Rule 5'ers would've been avoided. However, looking at other good Jay teams (figuring good teams would make better use of a bench or have more need for it) ...

1993: factoring in split positions (SS was two 1/2 season regulars, LF was also) we see Alfredo Griffen as a utility infielder who got a total of 95 AB's over 46 games all season after 150 AB's and 63 games the year before. There were two backups to the regulars in LF/RF (Henderson/Jackson being the regulars with Carter shifting depending who was on the roster) who each had under 200 AB's despite there being a month and a half where there was no LF'er. Backup infielder beyond Griffen (who actually was the regular for 1/2 a month)? No one had over 50 AB's in that role, but probably Sojo or Cedeno.

OK, but that team had 'sit on his hands Cito' as manager. Sadly, I suspect if we kept on looking we'd continue to find 24/25th guys with under 100 AB's each season vs 6/7th guys in the pen getting 40 IP (or 120 outs plus hits/walks).

In the end what matters most is what your team is made of. If you have starters who go 7+ regularly and have a lineup of platoon players then a 5 man pen makes sense. If your starters average 6 IP and you have a set lineup then a 7 (or even 8) man pen makes sesne.
Chuck - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 02:40 PM EST (#179265) #

Do I reserve the right to gripe out loud the moment I see Scutaro either at first base or in left field?

ChicagoJaysFan - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 02:46 PM EST (#179266) #
Hmm... wonder who the emergency catcher will be in 2008?

I figure Scutaro - more by default than anything else.  It's not going to be Stairs - he may never be able to stand up if he crouches.  That leaves Eckstein / McDonald / Scutaro.  I think Eckstein is too old and has played exclusively one position so long that he, and the team, probably don't want to teach him anything new.  I think McDonald is the primary back-up middle IF and it'll be the best use of his practice time to work on things with the other double-play partners.  Scutaro already is an uber-utility player having played 5 positions last year (never having seen him in the OF, I don't know how effectively).  His job in the majors is pretty much based on his versatility, so I think he is also the one with the most to gain by picking up the tools of ignorance.

My darkhorse candidate - Reed Johnson.  I remember a few years ago the Jays were thinking of teaching him a middle IF position (at the end of '05 I think) so that he could become more of a utility player as the thinking at that time was that at best he was a career 4th OF.  With Lind/Snider coming up soon, the Jays are probably realizing that at least with them, Reed Johnson will, hopefully, be no better than a 4th OF, so why not start to make him a bit more flexible.
Chuck - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 02:52 PM EST (#179267) #
so why not start to make him a bit more flexible.

I'd suggest that his back surgery might keep him from being flexible enough (pun intended) to handle catching.
ChicagoJaysFan - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 03:11 PM EST (#179268) #
I'd suggest that his back surgery might keep him from being flexible enough (pun intended) to handle catching.

Good call (and pun) - not sure why I didn't think of that.
Mike Green - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 03:54 PM EST (#179269) #
DeWayne Wise was called up in the middle of July of 2002, and got plenty of work in July/August.  He didn't hit well, and didn't see much work after the rosters were expanded.  Wise's performance doesn't really tell you much about whether you want a pitcher or hitter as your 25th man to start the season.

There are two factors in the increased number of appearances by relievers- starters are pitching less, and relievers are pitching less per appearance.  I agree that a six man pen is desirable because of the first factor, but the constant flipping of relievers to gain the platoon advantage comes with a cost to the bench.  A left-handed veteran hitter to fill the Greg Gross/Dane Iorg role (to fill in for Thomas or Stairs when injured and to pinch-hit for Eckstein late) would have some definite utility for the club to begin the season.




ANationalAcrobat - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 04:31 PM EST (#179270) #
When I heard last week the Rays and James Shields were close to a seven year deal, I was shocked - what had James Shields done that would warrant a seven year deal? Rotoworld posted the details, however, and I am seriously impressed but what the Rays have done.

Off topic, but it's gotta go somewhere!

CaramonLS - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 05:00 PM EST (#179271) #
I didn't realize how good shields actually was until I looked at his numbers a little closer.  Amazing ratios and a great WHIP.
scottt - Wednesday, January 23 2008 @ 06:20 PM EST (#179272) #
I still disagree with the need for a 5-man bench and having a lefty on the bench when Stairs is playing doesn't sway me.  I just don't see why we'd want a lefty on the bench that isn't good enough to start when the other team starts a right-handed pitcher.

Why? Pitch hitting and pitch running.

Stairs started last year as the official pinch hitter, but eventually became a semi-regular. Due to his age, Stairs will likely resume this role next year. That leaves room for somebody on a one year contract.

A Rule 5 guy would be a terrible idea. I don't see a lot of contenders with Rule 5 guys on their bench.

Is there still a need for a lefty pinch hitter? Probably just for Eck with runners in scoring position. Stairs had 25 pinch hit last year so that probably doesn't translate into a whole lot of ABs.

Is there still a need for a pinch runner? Just for Thomas now that Glaus is gone and what's on the bench is already adequate, although a genuine base stealer could be useful.

All considered, the Jays will start the year with an extra pitcher and retool the bench with the AAA guys whenever someone lands on the DL. Nothing else makes sense and strategy be damned.
Geoff - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 01:27 PM EST (#179284) #
How many guys are there who give you less than 1.15 WHIP and more than 0.8 K/IP? Or stretch it to 1.2 and 0.75.
Mylegacy - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 02:45 PM EST (#179288) #

I disagree with Keith's take on the Rolen trade.

We've given up a "chronically" injured Glaus for a "possibly repaired" Rolen. Glaus can carry a team for a month - like he did last year. Rolen may be the best 3rd baseman of his generation (counting both offense and defense) and  - IF HEALTHY - will be "cornerstone."

The trade could be won by EITHER team, IF the other's teams player breaks down. IF both are healthy - Jays win - hands down! Molitor for Winfield.

Travis Snider - it is going to be a treat, a pleasure and a total blast to watch throughout his career - bat by bat - year by year. We should all just sit back - pray this franchise player doesn't get diminished by injury - and just revel in the sheer joy as his brilliance unfolds.

As Toad said in the Wind in the Willows - "Oh joy!!"

Pistol - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 06:05 PM EST (#179290) #
Old friend Keith Law answered five, count em FIVE! Jays related Q's in his Espn chat today

Please do not reproduce the comments.  A link is the way to go.
mikerich - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 07:29 PM EST (#179292) #
Apparently we've signed Rod Barajas to a 1 year, 1.2 million dollar contract.
Brian B. - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 07:31 PM EST (#179293) #

Apparently, the Blue Jays have just signed our old friend Rod Barajas to a one year plus option contract.

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20080124&content_id=2354803&vkey=pr_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor

Flex - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 08:00 PM EST (#179295) #
What this signing tells me is maybe Ricciardi isn't as petty and grudge-obsessed as some people like to portray him as. I like the move and I applaud Ricciardi for doing what's right for the team and damn the hurt feelings.
Ryan Day - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 08:18 PM EST (#179296) #
Hmm. Barajas actually seems more impressive now, as he appears to have learned something about the strike zone in 2007. If he can hit 230/352/393 again and play good defence, that's a pretty good backup catcher.
HollywoodHartman - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 08:25 PM EST (#179298) #
Well the Jays wanted Olivo, but when he signed elsewhere JP must have opened up BBRef and settled on his #1 comparable.
China fan - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 08:49 PM EST (#179299) #
   It also tells us that Barajas doesn't hold a grudge -- or at least that he can swallow his pride.  (Or maybe he got a new agent.)   Offered a chance in 2007 to become the Jays starting catcher for two seasons, he blows the chance and now he ends up settling for being the back-up to Zaun for one season. 
    Incidentally, in other news:  To make room for Barajas on the 40-man roster, Ray Olmedo has been designated for assignment.
Gerry - Thursday, January 24 2008 @ 08:54 PM EST (#179300) #

Barajas thread now open.

Thanks

Pitching and Defense | 59 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.