Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

"He may be here in a few days."
- John Gibbons, before yesterday's game

But maybe not. After all, once the team is done with its current stretch facing eight right-handed starters in a row, there are a couple of southpaws on the horizon (Lester and Danks.)

Gibbons noted that Lind had had the neck problem but was getting beyond that. Well, yeah - he returned to action five days ago. Lind didn't play last night against the two Pawtucket right-handers, so he's still 5 for 13 since getting back into the lineup.

Jeff Blair wrote that he had been told that the service time issue (making sure Lind isn't arbitration eligible as a Super 2 after the 2009 season) "is, in fact, 95 per-cent of the reason that Lind hasn't been up yet." (Blair also mentioned that the Rogers higher-ups were "freaking out" about Frank Thomas' option year. )

I'll be curious to see what the GM says if someone actually comes out and asks him if service time really was the reason Lind stayed in Syracuse this week. Someone needs to ask the question. Because it would mean that management was worried Lind might do so well that they simply wouldn't ever be able to send him back to the minors, either this year or next (he has another option year after this one). They were afraid he would succeed.

Ricciardi has to deny it. But I want to hear it anyway.

Posted by Magpie on Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 05:21 AM EDT.

Free Adam Lind IV | 57 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

peiscooter - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 08:44 AM EDT (#183734) #

A "never to return to the minors " recall today would have Lind finish 2009 with 2 years and 129 days service time and I'm sure the Jays have a pretty good idea which other players are going to fall into the "Super 2" category along with Lind at that time.

As well, they would also have a pretty good idea as to whether Lind falls into the top 17% of those players to qualify for arbitration.

The more I think about, service time has to be a primary consideration to holding back Lind and keeping 3 light hitting backup infielders on the roster. But, then again, this is in direct conflict with the sense of urgency to win in 2008.

Chuck - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 09:27 AM EDT (#183736) #

The Jays are currently at 4.54 RF/G with a 256/346/369 line. The league averages are 4.60, 263/336/403.

On defense, they are currently at 4.38 RA/G. The league average is 4.60.

As the team stumbles through this ugly stretch, we must bear bear in mind the old chestnut that no team is as good as it looks when it is winning, nor as bad as it looks when it is losing. And they are looking bad, that's for sure.

I saw this as an 84ish-win team at the start of the season. I still believe this to be the case. Good enough to tease, nothing more.

grjas - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#183743) #

"But, then again, this is in direct conflict with the sense of urgency to win in 2008. "

This is the most annoying part of the Frank Thomas debacle. Why in god's name would they bench him, drop him and excuse it with "we have to win now" when he's replaced with minor leaguers as Lind continues to rot, and before Rolen is ready. It's funny, I was starting to get upbeat about JP after his plugging some holes in the summer, and about Gibbons for his early use of small ball.

But this whole sequence over the last week has to be one of the most brainless of their respective tenures.

stripeymonkey - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 11:56 AM EDT (#183744) #

Is someone able to succinctly explain this Super 2 issue for me? I don't really follow/understand the trading and minor league callup rules

Ryan Day - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 12:14 PM EDT (#183746) #

I don't know how you can justify keeping Lind down to save a few bucks when you're playing Frank Thomas $6 million to play for Oakland.

John Northey - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 12:20 PM EDT (#183747) #

Super 2 as I understand it...
This was created as a method to settle a dispute years ago. Basically, it used to be that after 2 seasons (or equivalent) on a major league roster (25 man, not 40 man) players were eligible for arbitration. Then, in 1985, the players agreed to stretch it to 3 years. The next contract they fought on getting it back to two years and it ended up becoming 'super 2' where the top 17% of guys with under 3 years and over 2 years experience got to go for arbitration.

From the players web site...
A player with three or more years of service, but less than six years, may file for salary arbitration. In addition, a player can be classified as a "Super Two" and be eligible for arbitration with less than three years of service. A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season and he ranks in the top 17 percent in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season.

Generally speaking 120 days of service or more (plus 2 years) makes it possible for you to be a super two. Lind had 145 days service going into this season so the Jays need him down for at least 25 days to feel safe. By now it should be safe to call him up and avoid losing a few million in arbitration in a few years.

Sherrystar - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 12:38 PM EDT (#183748) #

Well... not confirmed yet but...

Someone at the "other" site is saying Lind has been called up and Inglett sent down.

Could it be?

Mike Green - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 12:59 PM EDT (#183749) #

Wilner's blog mentions that Rogers' people were having a "freak-out" about the Thomas option year. And I suppose that they weren't going to send someone to have a pillow fight with him to try to reduce his PAs in 2008...they aremany things but stupid isn't one of them.

I am strangely optimistic about this club. I agree that 95 wins would be extremely improbable (and that was so from the beginning of the year), but I do not expect that 95 wins will be required to make the playoffs this year. They do need a calming presence at the helm, and Gibbons is not that man (although overall he is not a bad manager). Like John Northey, I would love to see Cito back after Lind is established in left-field.

peiscooter - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 01:24 PM EDT (#183753) #

Can't find any mention of it on the Jays website, TSN, ESPN, or SportsNet, but I'm listening to the Fisher Cats game and they just reported that Lind has been recalled to Toronto.

robertdudek - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#183758) #

Like John Northey, I would love to see Cito back after Lind is established in left-field.

Do you mean the manager who limited Shawn Green's PAs for 3 years ('95 to '97) when he clearly had the bat and the glove to play everyday?

Rob - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#183760) #

Who's this "Reed Johnson"?

ChicagoJaysFan - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 02:50 PM EDT (#183763) #

Do you mean the manager who limited Shawn Green's PAs for 3 years ('95 to '97) when he clearly had the bat and the glove to play everyday?

I don't think that's a fair criticism of Cito and I think it's inaccurate to say Green had the bat to play everyday.

Green couldn't hit lefties in 95 through 97 so playing him more than on a platoon basis at that time wouldn't have improved our team's performance those years. It wasn't until 99 that Green became anything but a hole in the lineup with a lefty on the mound.

During 95 through 97, Green did get most of the at-bats against righties, so Cito was playing him where he was capable.

And considering how Green turned out, I think Cito (and the rest of the staff of course) did a nice job of developing Green.

catchdataste - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 03:01 PM EDT (#183765) #

What a sick catch, obviously most Jays fans lament losing him in favour of Shannon. Even if he has lost a step, i don't see Stewart comming up with any webgems. Well hopefully we won't have to worry anymore if Lind finally did get the call.

On a side note, although it has already been hypothesized by many, bear with me if you will and just imagine this lineup:

David Eckstein, SS
Aaron Hill, 2b
Alex Rios, RF
Vernon Wells, CF
Barry Bonds, DH
Scott Rolen, 3b
Adam Lind, LF
Lyle Overbay, 1b
Zaun/Barajas, C

This lineup would look absolutely intimidating. I don't see how, with our starting pitching and a presumably healthy Ryan, this team would not be making a run at a playoff spot. Stairsy filling in in the outfield and as the primary bat off the bench would just further strengthen this club. I'm sure that if money/ownership wasn't an issue Bonds would already be signed. Maybe JP's charms and smooth talking are becomming a little less effective after 18 mill for 32 homers and 100 rbi for thomas. I hope he can talk ole Teddy Cash into it.

As far as the whole clubhouse cancer thing goes, I don't see Barry comming in and intentionally ruffling any feathers, this guy just wants a world series ring. I think we would see the best of Barry (well i think his teammates will, maybe not the media). In any case, i think its been well documented in the past that not everyone has to be best friends on a team to win. This club needs to be shaken up, they could use a distraction like Barry comming in right now so they wouldn't have to listen to question over question about how bad they're hitting with RISP right now. This clubhouse is too layed back, we know this, Halladay eluded to it in spring training. If bringing in Barry Bonds doesn't wake up this team, i don't see what else would. Its not like the whole team would be thrown out of whack, he actually is a perfect fit for them.

owen - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 03:04 PM EDT (#183766) #

Who's this "Reed Johnson"?

Yeah, that's a hell of a catch. It also reminds me of how our outfield defense, and Wells in particular, has looked shaky this year.

I miss Reed. I miss Frank. I wonder what projected 2008 starter we will outright release next month.

uglyone - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 03:13 PM EDT (#183767) #

On a side note, although it has already been hypothesized by many, bear with me if you will and just imagine this lineup:

David Eckstein, SS
Aaron Hill, 2b
Alex Rios, RF
Vernon Wells, CF
Barry Bonds, DH
Scott Rolen, 3b
Adam Lind, LF
Lyle Overbay, 1b
Zaun/Barajas, C

Not that I disagree with your lineup.....but it is interesting that you may have our worst hitter there in the leadoff spot - not sure that's the best way to go.

If Lind can hit at a decent clip (.750ish+ ops), bump Hill up to leadoff, put Lind in the 2 slot, and drop Gritstein down to the 9 hole.

catchdataste - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 03:14 PM EDT (#183768) #

Who's this "Reed Johnson"?

Yeah, that's a hell of a catch. It also reminds me of how our outfield defense, and Wells in particular, has looked shaky this year.

I miss Reed. I miss Frank. I wonder what projected 2008 starter we will outright release next month.

Hopefully its Shannon Stewart. No disrespect to Stewart, he is a good hitter and has put together a fine major league career, but i hope that we sign Barry desperately. I think he is the only player out there capable of having a massive impact on a team at this point. It is early and i don't want to panic, i really don't, but this is a pivotal point in their season. I say this only because it has been all too similar to how they were last year, i just have a bad feeling that if something isn't done soon, it may be much, much more of the same. This team really is only a dynamite offensive force away from being legit.

catchdataste - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 03:17 PM EDT (#183769) #

Not that I disagree with your lineup.....but it is interesting that you may have our worst hitter there in the leadoff spot - not sure that's the best way to go.

If Lind can hit at a decent clip (.750ish+ ops), bump Hill up to leadoff, put Lind in the 2 slot, and drop Gritstein down to the 9 hole.

I really can't disagree with you there, good point, i would like to see that too.

grjas - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 03:28 PM EDT (#183770) #

As the Gibbons watch is already starting, it might be interesting to reflect on the following: in 20 years, no BJ manager has ever moved on to another managerial role. (Think there'll be takers for Gibby?)

Manager Years What we remember him for Managerial years post BJ

Cito Gaston 89-97 2 rings 0

Mel Queen 97 His pitching coach years 0

Tim Johnson 98 �When I was in Vietnam� 0

Jim Fregosi 99-00 His pre-Jays Days 0

Buck Martinez 01-02 His TV years 0

Carlos Tosca 02-04 Not much 0

John Gibbons 04-?? Lasting too long ??

So what's the issue? Do they fade away in our northern hinterland, or does no one else want these dudes. Hmmm. Let me think

robertdudek - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 03:36 PM EDT (#183771) #

Yes, because from 1995 to 1997, the Jays were so close to winning the pennant that sacrificing a win or two by speeding up Green's learning curve against lefties (you don't learn to hit them by sitting when they pitch) would have been foolishness [end sarcasm].

It was a common theme in the press during those years that Gaston was very sour on Green. Green hardly played at all against lefties in '95 and '96. And if you look at his game log from 1997, it is apparent that Green did not become an everyday player until June 23. He had little success against LHP over the next few years, all the while playing everyday and putting up very good overall numbers.
The normal thing to do with a potential superstar on a team out of contention is to play them everyday and let them learn to hit lefties and righties. If it turns out they can't do that, you reevaluate. For 2.5 years, Green was not given a regular chance to hit lefthanded pitching. I suspect you'd have to look long and hard to find other examples of players who eventually became star position players that were platooned for that long at the beginning of their major league careers playing for mediocre teams.

It was also a common theme that Gaston didn't trust young players, Green being Exhibit A. Exhibit B was Shannon Stewart, who in 1997 was destroying AAA while 38-year old Otis Nixon was the regular center fielder. Stewart was called up on August 13th and installed as the everyday center fielder for the remainder of the season (by which point the Jays were 17.5 games out of first place and 12 behind the wild card position with 45 games left to be played).

Sure you can blame that on the GM, but if a GM knows that Gaston is not going to play Stewart everyday, there isn't much point in calling him up.

I have never heard of any Blue Jays watcher of that era who thought Gaston was a good developer of young talent.

Original Ryan - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 03:38 PM EDT (#183772) #

So what's the issue? Do they fade away in our northern hinterland, or does no one else want these dudes. Hmmm. Let me think

At the end of the 2000 season, I believe Bob Elliott wrote in his column that the Blue Jays needed to act quick and re-sign Jim Fregosi before another team snapped him up.

CaramonLS - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 03:49 PM EDT (#183773) #

Here is what I would go with, with Bonds.

Lyle Overbay, 1b
Alex Rios, RF
Vernon Wells, CF
Barry Bonds, DH
Scott Rolen, 3b / Stairs, LF
Aaron Hill, 2b / Rolen 3b
Adam Lind, LF/ Hill, 2b
David Eckstein, SS / Barajas, C / MacDonald, SS
Zaun, C / Eckstein, SS

I'd personally do this if we had Bonds is our lineup. If Stairs goes in, he Bats 5th behind Bonds and plays LF (and moves Hill/Rolen down a spot). If Barajas is in, he moves to 8th and Zaun/Eckstien bat 9th.

Pretty sure I covered every possibility in the lineup with this.

Magpie - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 04:31 PM EDT (#183777) #

Green played mainly as a platoon player as a rookie in 1995. This was how the Jays had always liked to work a new player into the lineup - put him in the situation where he's most likely to succeed. After a slow start, Green rallied with a strong second half, and put together a strong enough season that he went into 1996 expected to claim the job full-time. Problem was, by the middle of June 1996 he was hitting .216 and Gaston decided that going on this way was helping neither Green nor the ball club. His responsibilities reduced, Green had another good second half. But Gord Ash still decided to bring in more outfielders as he could find for 1997 - he traded for Orlando Merced in the off-season, Jose Cruz early in the year, took a flier on Ruben Sierra, and was still paying free agent money to Joe Carter and Otis Nixon.

And the notion that Gaston was unwilling to give young players a chance has always mystified me - but I assume it's related to his eventually falling prey to that common, and invariably fatal, manager's disease - Loyalty to Guys Who Won For You Long Ago. In Gaston's case, Joe Carter was Exhibit A. If nothing else, Gaston managed here for slightly longer than Cox and Williams combined, and made first time regulars (and first time rotation starters) of far more players than those two combined for.

92-93 - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 04:46 PM EDT (#183781) #

Caramon, here's how my lineup with Bonds would look :

1. Rios
2. Stairs
3. Wells
4. Bonds
5. Rolen
6. Overbay
7. Hill
8. Zaun
9. McDonald

Sigh.

timpinder - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 06:04 PM EDT (#183785) #

Adam Lind is up, and it's about time:

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080426.wspt-jays-lind26/GSStory/GlobeSportsBaseball/home

robertdudek - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 06:04 PM EDT (#183786) #

Problem was, by the middle of June 1996 he was hitting .216 and Gaston decided that going on this way was helping neither Green nor the ball club. His responsibilities reduced, Green had another good second half.

It didn't happen exactly this way.

Green started the season as the regular - in April he made 21 starts of 25 and played the entuire game 20 times. So he played a "complete game" 80% of all team games. At the end of April, his OPS was .751.

It was about this time - the first week of May, when Gaston's usage of Green changed. In May he started 21 of 28 games (75%), but played a "complete game" only 12 times (43% of team games). Perhaps not coincidentally, Green's bat cooled as the month progressed. Clearly Gaston was pinch hitting for Green much more often in May than in April. He ended May with a .633 OPS overall.

June was the low point, as Green started only 56% of team games and completed 10 of the 15 he started (37%).He raised his OPS to .688 overall.

July, August and September followed the same platoon usage as May and June. Green started 74%, 69% and 69% of team games, but "completed" 48%, 59% and 50%. This was despite hitting very well during these months (as Magpie noted). So Gaston did not reward Green with increased playing time when he hit well. Instead he kept nearly the same usage pattern in place that he had adapted in early May.

In April, Green had started 84% of the games and had "completed" 80%. From May to the end of the season, Green started in 69% of team games and "completed" only 47% of them. It's clear from the data that from May to the end of September, Green was being utilized in a platoon role.

What about the pennant race, you may ask? By the end of June, the Jays were 36-44 and 11.5 games behind the Yankees (10 games out of the wildcard). Pretty clearly if they were in a pennant race, it was by the skin of their nose. By the end of July, the Jays were 49-58. The division was out of range, and the wild card team in the standings, Seattle, was 9 games ahead, while 4 other teams were between them and the Jays. With 55 games left, that's pretty hopeless.

At this point, you might think... "Green is hitting well, we're basically out of it, let's put him in there everyday." Gaston kept platooning him.

Jdog - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 06:16 PM EDT (#183788) #

I noticed Joe Inglett was sent down for Adam Lind. So is Diaz still up? If so I would like to see him get a start behind the dish, but am not counting on it.

Original Ryan - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 06:18 PM EDT (#183789) #

Diaz was sent down yesterday to make room for Rolen.

SheldonL - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 07:08 PM EDT (#183794) #

"Who's this "Reed Johnson"?

Yeah, that's a hell of a catch. It also reminds me of how our outfield defense, and Wells in particular, has looked shaky this year.

I miss Reed. I miss Frank. I wonder what projected 2008 starter we will outright release next month."

Can somebody say Gold Glove!?

Magpie - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 07:20 PM EDT (#183795) #

I've been going mostly by memory of Shawn Green's early years. My Memory told me they tried to give him the full time job coming out of spring in 1996, and again he didn't hit for the first few months, so they went back to the platoon. A quick look at his monthly splits confirms that overall recollection. But it would be intersting to tease out the details. So beginning May 1:

May 1 - Robert Perez starts in RF against LH, Green sits
May 2 - Robert Perez starts in RF against LH, Green sits
May 3 - Green starts against RH (1-3, BB, 2 RBI), full game although LH reliever (Jamie Moyer!!) took over in 3rd
May 4 - Green starts against RH (0-3) (Perez pinch hits in the 8th against LH with bases loaded; Royals brought in RH, Perez hits into DP)
May 5 - Green starts against RH (1-5, RBI, R) full game
May 7 - Perez starts against LH, Green pinch hits for him in 7th (0-1)
May 8 - Green starts against RH (0-3), Crespo pinch hits for him in the 8th against LH Vosberg
May 9 - Green starts against RH (2-3, RBI) full game
May 10- Green starts against RH (0-4) full game
May 11- Green starts against RH (1-4), Samuel pinch hits for him in the 9th against LH Stanton
May 12- Green starts against RH (0-2, BB), Perez pinch hits in the 8th against LH
May 14- Robert Perez starts in RF against LH, Green sits
May 15- Green starts against RH (0-4) full game
May 16- Green starts against RH (0-4) full game
May 17- Green starts against RH (1-4) full game
May 18- Green starts against RH (0-3, BB) full game
May 19- Green starts against RH (2-4) full game
May 20- Jacob Brumfield starts in RF against LH, Green sits (Brumfield's Toronto debut
May 21- Green starts against RH (1-4) full game
May 22- Green starts against RH (1-3, BB), Perez pinch hits in the 11th against LH
May 23- Green starts against RH (1-4, RBI), Perez pinch hits in the 10th against LH (came in to bunt)
May 25- Green starts against RH (0-2), Perez pinch hits in the 7th against LH (Everyday Eddie Guardado!)
May 26- Green starts against RH (1-4) full game
May 27- Green starts against RH (1-4) full game
May 28- Green starts against RH (1-2, R, RBI, 3b), Brumfield pinch hits against LH in 6th
May 29- Robert Perez stars against RH, Green pinch hits in 8th (0-1)
May 31- Green starts against RH (0-3), Perez pinch hits in the 8th against LH

Robert Perez! I'd almost completely forgotten him. He's what happened! And you got to love the fact that the guy taking playing time away from young Shawn Green was a rookie.

Perez wasn't bound for glory - although he was a rookie, he was actually three years older than Green. He had no power, average speed, and swung at everything. Perez had been the Jays minor league player of the year in 1995, and made the team out of camp that spring. He sat on the bench for almost all of April (he went 3-15), but Gaston started giving him a few at bats in May. And that month, while Green was going 14-74 (.189), Perez went 10-28 (.357.) Which got him some more playing time. He never did get as much action as Green, but he stayed hot all the way through August, before a big September slump (7-38) dropped his final BAVG from .355 to .327.

In fact, Gaston may have received some heat at the time for not playing Perez every day...

Magpie - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 07:49 PM EDT (#183797) #

By the way, while I take a back seat to no man in my general admiration for Cito Gaston's work here, I absolutely do not want to see him given the manager's job. No way, no how. I'd probably have a cardiac event if it happened, I'd be so surprised - but even if that weren't a factor - don't do it!

I say that for much the same reason I don't want to see them bring Carlos Delgado back as a DH. That sort of thing pretty well never works. It's something the Leafs would do. And you see how well it's worked for them (Though I notice that it hasn't stopped the Leafs from doing stuff like that year after year after year.)

Besides - Gaston's big specific strength is sorting through the chaos, and establishing some order and common sense. If you've got a talented team that's lost its way and doesn't know which end is up anymore - Cito Gaston's your man. He's the anti-Jimy Williams!

Gaston's other specific strength is sorting through his pitchers, figuring which ones can help and in what sort of ways, and building a bullpen. It's a very strange gift for someone who I'm convinced simply doesn't like pitchers, the way some people don't like cats. As a species.

Anyway, that's not a problem here. Gibbons does a good job running the staff as a whole, including the bullpen. I know everybody complains about Gibbons' bullpen management - maybe not as much as Boston fans complain about Francona's or as much as New York fans complained about Torre's, but quite a lot anyway. But trust me on this - I'm in the middle of an Immense Study of this very issue, and I will give you the advance news that Gibbons' bullpen management in particular looks extremely sane and sensible compared to almost every other manager in the league.

The guy this team really needs, the one guy who could make this thing work, is Billy Martin.

robertdudek - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 09:00 PM EDT (#183800) #

The guy this team really needs, the one guy who could make this thing work, is Billy Martin.

Care to estimate the chances of Billy being the next Jays manager? ;-)

If the Jays did sign Barry Bonds right now, our chances of making the playoffs would go from something like 2% to 15%. Maybe a blockbuster trade that worked out just right might get us up to 10%. But JP has shown no ability to make such a trade.

Craig B - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 10:00 PM EDT (#183808) #

The guy this team really needs, the one guy who could make this thing work, is Billy Martin.

Billy's particular magic was with pitchers, though. This team already has the pitching, and has it working near the top of its game - it just has no hitting, and two huge self-created, pulsating weaknesses on defense.

I know he's getting pretty old, but the guy this team needs is Davey Johnson.

ComebyDeanChance - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 10:30 PM EDT (#183814) #

I'm pretty sure that the Blue Jays, and Rogers Communications, want to be closely associated to Barry Bonds. I find this topic, frankly, silly.

I can imagine Barry doing a tv commercial for Rogers, where he takes an incoming call on his barcalounger in the clubhouse, surrounded by his crew of thugs, and then complains that the network dropped the call. "When I'm getting indicted for two counts of perjury to a grand jury, and obstruction of justice, I want to make sure my legal team can get through. And I want to make sure my supplier can reach me, when I need the clear and the cream. So I'm switching to Rogers."

The notion that signing Barry Bonds is the answer to a last-place team with a shallow farm system, isn't simply desperate - it' a disconnect from reality.

jbrains - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 10:42 PM EDT (#183816) #

The guy this team really needs, the one guy who could make this thing work, is Billy Martin.

We already have a manager that overuses his top starting pitchers. (Source: Baseball Prospectus' 2008 profile of John Gibbons. You could look it up.)

Magpie - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 10:51 PM EDT (#183818) #

Billy's particular magic was with pitchers, though.

Martin's probably better remembered for his impact on pitchers, but his magic appears to have worked right across the board. He appears to have made everyone... just play better.

At any rate, his teams' offensive performance improved, without exception, everywhere he went.. (I was ready for this, I've been doing some work on Billy lately!)

In his first job, the Twins went from about league average in 1968, to leading the league in runs scored in 1969.

The Tigers offense was also about league average before Billy got there, second in the league in runs scored his first season there.

Texas was dead last in the AL in runs scored in 1973. Billy arrived in September, and in 1974 they had the second highest scoring team in the league.

His impact on the Yankees is harder to tease out, but they were below league average in 1974 under Bill Virdon, and moved up to second place the next year. Martin replaced Virdon that August.

Oakland had the worst offense in the league in 1979 - under Martin they moved up to 10th in 1980 and 6th in 1981.

In his last few tours with the Yankees, the offense improved from 8th in the league in 1982 to 5th under Martin in 1983; from 3rd under Yogi in 1984 to leading the league under Martin in 1985. Even the 1988 Yankees, which Martin only ran for the first couple of months, had a better offense than the previous year's edition.

He is remembered for all that Billy Ball stuff, but his best Oakland team led the league in home runs as well as complete games. In truth he generally had an elegantly simple approach. At the top of the lineup, he liked to have a couple of guys who got on base a whole lot. He managed some of the greatest leadoff hitters of his time - Rod Carew, Willie Randolph, Rickey Henderson. And he followed those guys with a whole bunch of power hitters.

Mike Green - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 11:11 PM EDT (#183819) #

robertdudek - Saturday, April 26 2008 @ 11:18 PM EDT (#183820) #

From 76-78, Mickey Rivers was the main leadoff man for Martin.

Rivers was a good base stealer and .300 hitter in his prime, but was not an especially good leadoff man because he didn't walk. But Martin did somehow get Rivers to hit a few home runs, something he had not done in with the Angels.

Frank Markotich - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 09:47 AM EDT (#183836) #

Mike, are you saying that Gibbons is too intense? I'm not an insider, so naturally I could be completely off, but I had him in the John McNamara - Grady Little lineage. If the team is pressing with runners on because the manager is too wound up, that puts Gibbons in the Jimy Williams mold.

Frank Markotich - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 09:51 AM EDT (#183837) #

Or maybe wearing a jacket at all times, even when it's 80 degrees in Orlando, is causing Gibbons' brain to overheat.

Craig B - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 10:50 AM EDT (#183838) #

This team is nowhere near as bad as it looks right now. Some sifting and a less intense approach is needed. I personally wouldn't want either Billy Martin or Davey Johnson within 500 miles of this club right now, although they would be fine managers for many teams.

I just can't believe that anyone (much less you Mike) thinks this team is playing with passion and intensity and fire. *They are asleep out there*. Eckstein, and Zaun (as always) excepted. Even Aaron Hill looks like he's not that into it. Meanwhile, Wells is disinterested, Overbay's as zoned out as ever, Barajas has looked like he just took a bat across the eyes ever since the season started, and Stewart of course is barely conscious as usual. I won't speak of Scutaro - even thinking of him raises my blood pressure. The fact that Scutaro has started ten games since that debacle against Oakland on April 9th is almost unbelievable to me - your .130-hitting backup third baseman singlehandedly throws a game away for you, and Gibby's response is to keep giving him opportunities to lose games for you, and this is somehow OK?

If you ask me, less intense is definitely not the answer here. This team needs to start playing for the short term - needed to do that 13 months ago.

Chuck - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 11:04 AM EDT (#183839) #

Or maybe wearing a jacket at all times, even when it's 80 degrees in Orlando...

The jacket gives him somewhere to hide the flask.

Gerry - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 11:12 AM EDT (#183840) #

When things are going as bad as they are there are two ways to go, make a change or stay the course. In general I favour stay the course as people usually want to do something for the sake of doing something, even if the something will have no impact on the future. However in this case I favour making a change, specifically the manager. As Craig says the team looks disinterested and the question we need to ask is "why do we think things will change?" John Gibbons has not demonstrated the ability to motivate this team over the last several years and I don't think the players are listening to Gibby. The media likes to portray Gibbons as a players manager but I don't get that sense or even some things I have heard through the last year or two suggest that isn't the case.

Managers in baseball might not win you many games but they can lose games. These days the biggest job of a manager is to motivate the players and get them ready to play. There is no evidence that the Blue Jays are in that frame of mind. Tomorrow is an off day, I would hope JP has a list of potential candidates that he can move on quickly. I don't know if this team needs a Billy Martin or a nice guy but the team does need someone who can motivate and inspire a listless bunch of guys.

Chuck - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 11:18 AM EDT (#183841) #

I don't know if this team needs a Billy Martin or a nice guy but the team does need someone who can motivate and inspire a listless bunch of guys.

If, in fact, Gibbons is the nice guy he is portrayed as, doesn't his successor have to be a Billy Martin? Isn't that the way these cycles go?

Call in Mike Keenan when things need to be shaken up. When the players stop responding to Mike Keenan, bring in someone player-friendly. When things get too comfy and the new guy has lost the room, bring in another Mike Keenan.

Accordian in. Accordian out. When the accordian is all the way in or all the way out, time for a change.

Frank Markotich - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 12:12 PM EDT (#183844) #

Craig is absolutely right. What the team needs is a Tony LaRussa - Jim Leyland type. Someone who insists on focus and preparation. If Leyland sees his pitcher start to wander around out there, a la McGowan against Tampa the other day, he doesn't stand there in the dugout with his hands in his jacket pocket and look worried, he doesn't send his pitching coach out after a decent interval, he goes out himself to deliver the message in a brief, forceful, one-syllable-word fashion.

Not a yeller and screamer - the players will tune him out in short order. Actually, they'll tune anybody out eventually, but a yeller has a much shorter shelf life.

I can't say who's available that fills the bill.

GregJP - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#183845) #

As Craig says the team looks disinterested......

So is the team "interested" with no RISP, and then suddenly "disinterested" with RISP?

Guys, the 11 for 97 with RISP is just a statistical outlier and has NOTHING to do with how "interested" or "motivated" the team is. This is freaking baseball and these thing happen. That's why they play 162 games and not 16.

GregJP - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#183846) #

What the team needs is a Tony LaRussa - Jim Leyland type.

You mean the Jim Leyland who also has his team in last place with more talent than the Jays?

Frank Markotich - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#183847) #

One other thing. This is bringing back eerie memories of last year. On April 30, the team was 13-12, then lost 9 in a row and spent the rest of the year trying to dig out.

Is this going to be an annual late April thing, predictable as Sam Mitchell not having the Raptors ready to start the playoffs?

robertdudek - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#183849) #

Like Mike Wilner, I tend not to subscribe to the idea that motivational factors are key to baseball success. I believe in two things:

1) You have to have the horses

2) There's more luck involved in baseball than most people think

Sometime down the road, the Jays will have a lengthy stretch where they win 80% or more of their games. During this time the commentary will be generally positive. People will posts about how motivated the team is and how great they look. If it happens after a managerial change, it will be ascribed to the motivational abilities of the new manager.

But the explanations will be no more true then, than the explanations for the losing are now. Every big leaguer wants to win ballgames and they all want to do well individually. Almost all of them work hard at their craft (some obviously work harder and a few are comparatively lazy).

Essentially all of these "explanations" for the team's struggles are post-facto. People are looking to explain the losing and naturally gravitate to amorphous concepts like lack of desire, or they "don't believe in their manager", or "they are pressing". Or even sillier notions about the batting order or not making productive outs. All of these and many others are the cliches that are trotted out every time a team struggles.

What differentiates my view from Wilner's is that I never thought this team had the horses. While the pitching is good it is very unlikely that it is as good as the 2007 performance. The bullpen in particular can't be expected to duplicate last season. The offense has brought in some new players, but I'll be damned if I can spot one bit of overall improvement relative to the league (remember, most of the other teams are trying to get better too). Everyone talks about Overbay and Wells rebounding from injuries, but they don't often take the time to think that Stairs and Zaun are unlikely to sustain the level of production they've shown. It's very likely that other players will get injured and perform below expectations. It happens to most teams and only a few fortunate clubs per year go the whole season without a significant injury to a key player.This is not a young group of hitters like the Rays have. I see no real cause for optimism for this group getting better with age.

It would take a Pollyanna on speed type of optimism to think that this team was as good on paper in March 2008 as the Yankees and Red Sox were (ignoring for the moment the likelihood that either Cleveland or Detroit are going to be the other main wild card contender, and they also looked much better on paper).

That leaves luck. The Blue Jays were going to need a whole lot of luck to win. That or a substantial infusion of talent during the first half of the season. Who, beyond Adam Lind (who is being grossly over-hyped out of desperation), is going to be riding to the rescue? Getting off to a 10-15 start only means that they will need even more luck to make the playoffs than if they had started 15-10.

Thomas - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 12:46 PM EDT (#183851) #

The notion that signing Barry Bonds is the answer to a last-place team with a shallow farm system, isn't simply desperate - it' a disconnect from reality.

The notion that Barry Bonds couldn't help this last-place baseball team is what is a disconnect from reality. The state of our farm system is irrelevant.

GregJP - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#183852) #

Getting off to a 10-15 start only means that they will need even more luck to make the playoffs than if they had started 15-10.

To win even 93 games (likely not enough) the Jays need to go 83-54 (0.606) the rest of the way. Anybody who thinks that's going to happen is very optimistic and bordering on delusional.

Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced that the Yankees, Indians, and Tigers are 90+ win teams. I think the Jays can still win 87-90 games, and then it's a matter of the Yankees rotation not being good, the Tigers not being able to outhit their terrible pitching and/or the Indians not being quite as good as most people think they are.

I can see a scenario where the Yankees, Jays, and Tigers go into August 5 or so games above 0.500, and then game on.

Gerry - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 01:13 PM EDT (#183853) #

Robert:

I do agree with most of what you write but I do think that some major league managers can get more out of their players. Why are managers like Jim Leyland and Bobby Cox so successful? They find a way to get the best out of their players. Now maybe they are exceptional and Gibbons won't be replaced by Leyland or Cox but what can be done, besides wait, to get the best out of the Jay's personnel?

The Jays have not get the best from their personnel, or lived up to expectations for several years now, why?

(a) They have had a consistent run of bad luck

(b) We have consistently overestimated the abilities of this team

I think the fact that 2008 looks like 2007 and 2006 is very frustrating.

Mike Green - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 01:44 PM EDT (#183855) #

The team is flat, but it is not because the manager is an oasis of calm. He is off his game and, as he has done from time to time during his tenure, losing it (Jimy Williams lost it all the time, which is why he is so disliked). Gaston would be fine, as would a coolish decision-maker, like a Whitey Herzog or a Earl Weaver (Earl might have been warmish with the umpires...).

In fairness to Gibbons, it is easy to understand why he may be frustrated when Thomas was released and Lind not called up despite his plea for help. That said, two important parts of the manager's job description are making the most of the talent on hand and motivating the players to give as close to their best performances as is possible. On both accounts, Gibbons is coming up short.

GregJP - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 01:45 PM EDT (#183856) #

(a) They have had a consistent run of bad luck

(b) We have consistently overestimated the abilities of this team

(c) they have underachieved for some reason.

(b)

GregJP - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 01:49 PM EDT (#183857) #

....are making the most of the talent on hand.....

I wonder if not playing McDonald over Eckstein in the 8th and 9th innings of games the team is ahead in is a choice made by Gibbons or a directive from Ricchiardi.

If it's the former, then I agree with the above statement.

robertdudek - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 02:22 PM EDT (#183861) #

The effect on wins and losses of a manager's in-game choices is not very significant, at least in modern baseball. Almost every manager makes the same kinds of in-game decisions nowadays. In terms of motivating players, generally you will find when teams are winning the manager is given credit for being a good motivator. When teams are losing people will often accuse the manager of failing to motivate his players.

What I know about Jim Leyland is that when he has had good players his teams win, and when he has bad players, his teams lose. So I don't think Leyland's ability to motivate is a large factor. It is, again, ascribed post-facto to explain the winning (does it disappear when he manages losing teams?).

In years past, some managers like Herzog and Weaver had real influence, if not outright control, of roster composition. This meant their decision making had more scope to make an impact, since they are able to choose their horses. That kind of situation is rare (is La Russa the last of this kind of manager?) today. Certainly, in Toronto, we know that Ricciardi is in firm control of who is and is not on the team and Gibbons must work with what he gets from JP.

And I will take option B among Gerry's choices, except that I can't include myself among the "we".

GregJP - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 02:40 PM EDT (#183864) #

Almost every manager makes the same kinds of in-game decisions nowadays.

As long as every manager brings in his "closer" with a 3 run lead, but not with a 4 run lead, in the 9th inning we can safely say that they are all mildly retarded and/or are directed to make stupid baseball decisions. Not to mention bringing them in when there is a high leverage situation earlier in the game.

Shane - Sunday, April 27 2008 @ 03:07 PM EDT (#183867) #

I wonder if not playing McDonald over Eckstein in the 8th and 9th innings of games the team is ahead in is a choice made by Gibbons or a directive from Ricchiardi.

Why would Ricciardi push this? This reads completely as a managing feelings and personnel move. Why would Ricciardi care? Actually, he should care, and have Gibbons use him. What's the sense of having McDonald if you're not getting value out of having him on the roster. He's a pinch runner or spot starter once a week. Not bad for a guy who you can't even use as a pinch hitter and making 2 million a year.

Free Adam Lind IV | 57 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.