My beef with Inglett is that he... he just doesn't hit when the Jays need him too.

His splits in high leverage, medium leverage, and low leverage situations. (From Baseball-reference).

High: .222/.200/.222 for OPS+ of 16
Medi: .182/.250/.182 for OPS+ of 20
Low:  .625/.667/1.000 for OPS+ of 342

In "Late and close situations" (as defined by baseball reference to be: PA in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck). He is 0 - 8 in these situations with a sac fly, a ROE and 2 RBI's.

Small sample size warning galore, but man, he's had numerous opportunities to help when it counts and he hasn't delivered.

I know his stats are good with RISP and 2 outs (someone might cite this in response to his "clutch" factor or lack thereof) but i'm willing to bet of those 3 hits (he's 3 - 7 in these situations) the times he got a hit was in a game the Jays were creaming the opponent and the times he didn't were close ball games. How can I check this?

I'm with Pistol. I've been screaming it from the mountain tops. FREE ADAM LIND!

Tonigh's starting line-up.

1. Eckstein    SS
2. Hill              2B
3. Barajas     DH
4. Rios           CF
5. Overbay     1B
6. Zaun           C
7. Inglett          RF
8. Scutaro       LF
9. McDonald  3B

Im sure Wells is gassed from last night. Of course Im joking but I actually wouldn't be too suprised to see it.  Boston pounded out 16 hits in a come from behind win yesterday, right now we have absolutely no reason to believe we can compete with them. Lets hope things change

In "Late and close situations" (as defined by baseball reference to be: PA in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck). He is 0 - 8 in these situations with a sac fly, a ROE and 2 RBI's.

Small sample size warning galore, but man, he's had numerous opportunities to help when it counts and he hasn't delivered.

Good splits and bad splits, given incredibly small sample sizes, are equally meaningless as predictors of future performance. Were Inglett 4 for 8, rather than 0 for 8, in "late and close situations", would that make you more confident to see him in the lineup? Would that suggest a greater likelihood of success moving forward?

A much broader argument, based on his long career, albeit mainly in the minors, can be used to argue against giving Inglett too much playing time. There's no need to cherry pick a few crummy, small sample splits.

When Rolen and Lind are called up, I propose this rule:  Of Stewart, Scutaro, Inglett and McDonald, either 0 or 1 of them are permitted to be in the starting lineup.  Starting three of them is kind of crazy.

I agree that, failing a very specific reason for rest, it was very ill-advised to give Wells and Rios days off during this (hopefully brief) window after Thomas was cut and before Rolen and Lind are added.

Chuck: I wasn't trying to predict Inglett's future success by showing those numbers and apologize if I implied this. More so, I was just trying to confirm what I thought from watching the games - that he's hitting when it doesn't matter. I was "cherry picking" the situations that i've observed him to be poor in. IE, important situations. And those numbers confirm that so far this year he hasn't been good in those situations. 

Over his career he's been a below average hitter in the majors and at a late age to boot (games played at age 28, 29, and 30). The indicator that he shouldn't be given substantial playing time would be like you said, his career stats combined with his age.

I had a number of good math teachers at Waterloo, and at least one great one.

Well not only is Lind still in Syracuse but check out this lineup from Gibby today, he's lost it, and Rios must either be hurt or in the doghouse:

Eck
Stewart
Hill
Wells
Stairs
Barajas
Zaun
Diaz
Inglett

Barajas and Zaun both in the lineup, Rios out, Overbay out, Lind in AAA.  Who's responsible for keeping Lind in AAA, Gibbons or Ricciardi?  I've never called for this before, but John Gibbons should be fired.  Not just because of these crazy lineup decisions, there's been many poor management decisions in the past.  I really started to sour on Gibbons a year or two ago when, in a critical at-bat and with Rios and McDonald both available on the bench, a lefty was brought in and Gibbons pinch-hit with John McDonald!!  (Who either promptly struck out or grounded into a double play, I don't remember). When Gibbons was asked about the decision the following day (by Wilner, I believe), Gibbons' response was that he, "had a hunch". 

Absolutely terrible.

Kevin Goldstein: You supply the van, and I'll drive.

Kevin Goldstein: TONS. I like Kevin Ahrens, I LOVE Justin Jackson and I think Yoherman Chavez is underrated. The future of the Jays really does reside in Lansing right now.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=452

With another horrible line-up being presented, at least there is some reason to watch the game as Diaz makes his debut. Im excited to see how he looks.

Rios better have the flu and it better be bad. And Overbay(who's been heating up)  better have something as well.

If we lose this Halladay- Hammel matchup tonight , Gibbons gets axed. Thas my predicition.

"If we lose this Halladay- Hammel matchup tonight , Gibbons gets axed. Thas my predicition".

So it's a win-win situation!

To some degree, no. But it's also another indication that Gibbons is not having the best week, to put it charitably.

     I guess it's inherent in bloggers to feel superior to the rest of the world, but is there any chance that people could refrain from insulting all sportswriters as "dogs" who "can't understand calculus"?    I've always admired Batter's Box for its intelligent discussions and its emphasis on civility, and our Code of Conduct is pretty clear that we're supposed to avoid hurling insults.  It's one thing to say that Griffin is factually wrong on various things -- fine.   But to insult an entire class of people is going a bit far.  Are we saying that Jeff Blair and every other writer is a "dog" who can't understand anything statistical?  Only a Bauxite has any brains at all?  That's taking the superiority of bloggers to a new level.

    Judging by the participation in the polls on this site, there are only a couple hundred of active participants in the Box.  Maybe there are hundreds of lurkers too, and maybe the daily "hits" are more than that, but I would guess that the number of daily readers of the Box is in the hundreds, whereas the Globe and Mail (for example) is financially obliged to cater to 400,000 daily subscribers and a million weekly readers.  An interview with JP Arencibia is of intense interest to a few hundred of us, but a mainstream newspaper would go bankrupt if it filled the sports pages with those kinds of articles.  To attack a sportswriter for catering to a million casual sports fans -- instead of catering to a few hundred hardcore statistical freaks -- is a little silly.  There's room for all of us in this world without attacking those who fill a different niche, isn't there?

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced something must be up with Lind and the situation in leftfield.  I've tried getting my head around it, and I just can't come up with any logical reason why the Jays would keep starting Inglett/Stewart/Scutaro in leftfield with Lind wasting away in AAA.  I didn't catch all of Ricciardi's time on the Fan 590, but I did hear him talk about Bonds.  I would have expected Ricciardi to respond with a resounding, "No", when asked about Bonds.  Instead he was non-committal.  With Ricciardi's comments and the handling of Lind, I wouldn't be completely floored if the Jays actually signed Bonds.

  The Bonds thing is fascinating.  If Ricciardi is admitting that they are thinking about signing him, this could explain a lot of what's happening with Lind.   Why bring him up for one or two games if they are trying to sign Bonds?  By the way, Ricciardi's style is to deny any rumored signing or trade until it actually happens, so of course he will say that he thinks a Bonds signing is unlikely.  If he said it was "likely", then Bonds and his agent would obviously demand more money.

   Again, I'd like to venture that some of the vitriol on these threads is a bit excessive.  Everyone condemned Gibbons as a moron for failing to put Rios and Overbay into the lineup tonight.  Then it transpired that they were not healthy enough to play tonight.  Anyone for a little patience here?

    As for Lind, it's been obvious since spring training that the team believes he needs more seasoning in the minors.  An early-season hot streak isn't enough to prove that he is ready for the majors.  The team's plan, probably, was to give him a full season at Syracuse this year.  (They promoted Coats and Inglett rather than Lind because they clearly believe that Lind needs more time in the minors -- why would their scouting report suddenly change on the basis of a few weeks of good numbers at Syracuse?)  Now they might adjust the plan to give him most of the season in Toronto, and that's still promoting him sooner than they probably believed was appropriate. 

    Let's wait another month or two before deciding if Gibbons and Ricciardi should be fired.

There's nothing more for Lind to prove in the minor leagues.  Even before this year's great start he had batted .317 / .378 / .506 in the minors.  Coats was called-up because the Jays wanted to make sure that Lind got regular playing time, not because they thought Coats was better or more ready.  If Lind was seen as a future bench player also, he may have been promoted instead of Coats.  Inglett was promoted because he could play multiple positions, including 3B.  The cry to have Lind promoted now is a result of his position finally being open for him, coupled with the fact that he would almost certainly be an offensive upgrade over Stewart or Inglett, especially in the power department.

As for Gibbons, in my opinion he's mismanaged the bullpen, overworked his "go-to" starters and made many poor in-game decisions for years.  I think he's a bad manager.  It went beyond today's starting lineup which, at the time of many of the posts, came without any explanation.  Apparently Rios didn't have the flu when he sat yesterday, and if Wells sat the previous game because he had the flu, why not just say, "Wells isn't in the lineup today because he has the flu",  instead of suggesting it was just a chance to give Vernon a rest?

I've been a very patient fan for many years, and I've been patient with Gibbons for years, but enough is enough.

   So, since other clubs have categorically declared that they will NOT sign Bonds, why is Ricciardi not issuing the same categorical statement?   If the other clubs can do it -- without any worries about collusion charges -- then why isn't Ricciardi doing exactly the same thing?  

    The answer is:  he COULD categorically deny an interest in Bonds if he wanted to.  It's totally implausible to imagine that MLB has appointed Ricciardi as a decoy to distract attention from a plot to keep Bonds out of baseball.  Why Ricciardi?  You'd have to be extremely conspiracy-minded to imagine that scenario.

    So, we're back to the most obvious explanation:  Ricciardi is admitting that he might sign Bonds because there is, in fact, some possibility of signing Bonds.   Maybe he and Godfrey have signed onto the deal, and it's simply awaiting approval from Rogers and his battery of legal and public-relations advisors.