Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Five runs in one Inning ? I'm a bit perturbed, these things are precious this year, five is practically a weeks worth, they shouldn't go using them all up at once.


Great pitching and, eventually, some great hitting too. Marcum was simply fantastic, striking out 9 in 8.2 Innings he had a shutout and a complete game going until he ran out of gas right at the end. The offense came out to play in the 8th. Tampa's bullpen forgot they were supposed to be good this year and reverted to 2007 form, as the meat of the Jays order rapped out a homer, a double, three singles and a walk or two to put up five runs and blow open what had been a tense close game.

Balks seem to be cropping up everywhere at the moment. Flicking around Extra Innings last night I came across Tim Hudson balking in a run on the Pat Hentgen special, the old fake to third throw to first pick-off move. The ump's apparently felt Hudson's foot landed too much on the direction of home rather than third. Definitely one of those every time you come to the Park you see something you've never seen before moments for me.

Game Day: It's the battle of number fives as Litsch goes against Jackson in the rubber match. 7:07 PM
TDIB 08 May 2008 | 93 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pistol - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:20 AM EDT (#184627) #
I wasn't crazy about the 9th inning pitching decisions.  After 8 it was 1-0 and Marcum was cruising, although he was reaching 100 pitches.  At that point the Jays were going to bring Ryan into the game after he couldn't throw strikes the other night.  I definitely would have had Marcum instead in that spot.

Then when the Jays started scoring runs, and the Rays were making a bunch of pitching changes, Marcum had been on the bench a long time.  I can see not bringing Ryan in then (saving him for a closer game), but I would used someone out of the pen instead of Marcum - they're all pretty fresh.

Regardless they're playing pretty well and a win tonight gets them tied for 2nd (albeit only at .500).

nanook - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:20 AM EDT (#184628) #
I guess it's a sign of the times, but I don't think you're alone in wishing this team could accumulate runs for use at a later time.
Lord knows we'll need them. On a related subject, I just came across an old article (Apr.9) which looks at the first post-season team in Jays history (1985) and how the new crew might mirror the oldtimers.
Here's the site:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2008/04/the_good_ol_jay.php

Mike Green - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:31 AM EDT (#184631) #
I commented in yesterday's TDIB thread to the same effect as Pistol. 

Lyle Overbay continues to hit the ball hard and control the strike zone well.  The homers will come.  There is no reason to have Stewart hitting second against RHP.

Gwyn - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:35 AM EDT (#184632) #
I would used someone out of the pen instead of Marcum - they're all pretty fresh.

I agree, I wonder if Marcum chasing his first career complete game had anything to do with the decision to leave him in.
topherkris - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:40 AM EDT (#184633) #
This doesn't have particularly much to do with the game itself, but its incredibly awesome the way both Eric Hinske and Gabe Gross are taking the time out to sign some autographs for the jays fans.  I've snuck down a couple times to watch some BP, and while getting Crawford or Upton to give you the time of day is impossible; Both Hinske and Gross have came by both days to sign some autographs and recieve the praise of jays fans.

Anyways, the point being, good-on those ex-jays.

China fan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:43 AM EDT (#184635) #
   If you have a pitcher who's pitched an amazing game, and he's very keen to get the complete-game shutout, wouldn't it be a little demoralizing to him if you yanked him from the game without at least giving him a crack at those last three outs?  I know that the manager has to think of other considerations too, but ideally don't you try to reward the pitcher by giving him a chance at the complete-game shut-out?  I'm assuming that Gibbons felt that Marcum deserved a shot at it.  Sure, the bullpen could use the work, and Marcum's arm could fall off if he pitches the 9th inning -- but he could be hit by a bus on the way home afterwards too, right?  Sometimes you take a very small risk, in the interests of rewarding a hard-working guy.


Paul D - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:47 AM EDT (#184637) #
Frasor's still on the team, right?  Seems like up 6 at home in the 9th would be a good chance for him to get some work in.
Gerry - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:56 AM EDT (#184639) #

Frasor's still on the team, right?

Can you be sure?  Maybe he has gone on a bender and the team are covering up for him?  Or he discovered a drug ring within the Rogers centre and he has been "disposed of" because he knew too much.

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#184640) #
Who would have thought after 35 games that Halladay would have the 3rd best ERA+ among our starters?  And while having a Halladay-esque start to the season nonetheless.

Looking at baseball-reference this morning, we have Marcum leading the way with an ERA+ of 158, McGowan second at 139, and Halladay 3rd at 137.

To further reinforce just how good that is - last year Haren had the 6th best ERA+ in the AL with 137.

John Northey - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:01 AM EDT (#184643) #
Had to check the rotation stats after the 3 over 135 ERA+.

Litsch is at 95 for his ERA+, giving up just 4 runs (3 earned) over his last 2 starts in 14 1/3 IP (1.88 ERA) after being sworn at by Gibbons.  Overall he is doing well as the 5th guy, being around league average but young enough to improve.  He has 2 60+ game scores (his past 2 starts), another 50+, one in the 40's, a 38 and a 26 (the game he was cursed for).

AJ is at 79 for his ERA+, or basically Tower-esk (83 last year).  He has had two game scores over 50 (a 73 for his 7 2/3 IP 0 run effort on the 1st, and his first start of 6 IP 2 runs), 4 in the 40's, and 1 stinker (19 for his 4 2/3 IP 6 run disaster 2nd start) plus his relief outing (2 runs in 1 IP).  He has been very, very disappointing. 

Purcey is the 6th starter (only guy other than big 5).  His game score, despite 7 walks, was 51 thanks to giving up just 1 run in his 4 1/3 IP.  Namely, he has almost as many 50+ starts as AJ despite 1 start vs 7.

Since I'm talking about game scores...
Halladay: 3 over 70 (including last 2 games), 3 in the 50's and a 47, 7+ IP in all starts
McGowan: 2 over 70 (last 2 starts), 2 in the 50's, 2 in the 40's and a 35.  The 35 was the only time he didn't get 5 innings in
Marcum: 2 over 70 (last 2 starts), 3 in the 60's, a 59 and a 39, pitching into the 6th in all starts
AJ: 1 over 70, 1 in the 50's, 4 in the 40's, and a 19
Litsch: 2 over 60, 1 in the 50's, 1 in the 40's and 2 stinkers (38, 26)

Wow.  I knew they were going well but the big 3 all having 70+'s for their past 2 starts is amazing, mixed with the 2 60+'s for Litsch and AJ's one really good start.  Halladay had 6 of the 70+'s last year, as did Marcum and 5 for McGowan.

A 70+ basically means a very strong performance with low odds of losing (unless you have hitters like the Jays do right now).  If it gets below 40 the team is screwed.  A 50+ is normally a quality start or a low run game with few innings (ala Purcey).

Halladay and the M&M guys are showing last year was no fluke while Litsch looks more and more like the real thing.  I just hope AJ picks it up so he can leave in the off-season and open a slot for Purcey.
Chuck - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:27 AM EDT (#184647) #

Frasor's still on the team, right?  Seems like up 6 at home in the 9th would be a good chance for him to get some work in.

My thoughts exactly. If this isn't a situation where you pitch Frasor -- currently on track for about 40 innings this year -- then what is? Maybe, just maybe, you don't need 7 relievers, at least when the starters are pitching as well as they are?

The Jays should do Frasor a favour and let him move on. Someone, somewhere will give him 70 innings.

Chuck - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:36 AM EDT (#184648) #

If you have a pitcher who's pitched an amazing game, and he's very keen to get the complete-game shutout, wouldn't it be a little demoralizing to him if you yanked him from the game without at least giving him a crack at those last three outs? 

How would it be demoralizing? He knows he did a great job (8 innings, 1 hit). His manager is telling him he did a great job. He knows he's having a great season. Everyone around him is telling him he's having a great season. It's all sunshine and rainbows. Not a negative comment to be heard.

Demoralizing would be to yank him in the 5th inning, say, of a 2-2 game with the bases loaded and nobody out. That would be a sign that his manager doesn't have confidence in him. That might play on his psyche.

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:44 AM EDT (#184649) #
The Jays should do Frasor a favour and let him move on. Someone, somewhere will give him 70 innings.

70 innings is a ton for a reliever.  Many teams don't have anyone exceed that level.  Just look at the AL East last year as an example:
  • Boston had no one over 70 and one over 60 (Hideki Okajima)
  • New York had 2 over 70 (Rivera and Vizcaino) and one at 60 (Farnsworth)
  • Toronto had one over 70 (Janssen) and 2 over 60 (Tallet and Accardo)
  • Baltimore had no one over 70 and two over 60 (Walker and Bradford)
  • Tampa had one over 70 (Glover) and 2 over 60 (Reyes and Stokes)
I don't see Frasor getting much more anywhere else than the 62+ innings he's averaged in his 4 years here.  Even the 53+ innings the last two years would only be an inning or two short of what he'd get elsewhere.


I do agree that you don't need 7 relievers when your rotation pitches like ours has recently.  I don't agree with the implicit assumption that the Jays starters will continue to be innings eaters like they have recently.
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:51 AM EDT (#184650) #
How would it be demoralizing? He knows he did a great job (8 innings, 1 hit). His manager is telling him he did a great job. He knows he's having a great season. Everyone around him is telling him he's having a great season. It's all sunshine and rainbows. Not a negative comment to be heard.

Demoralizing would be to yank him in the 5th inning, say, of a 2-2 game with the bases loaded and nobody out. That would be a sign that his manager doesn't have confidence in him. That might play on his psyche.


I agree that demoralizing may have been a strong / incorrect word, but if meant in the context of discouraging / demotivating, then I agree with the comment that yanking him could have been demoralizing.  Ego is a prime motivator and some players will find it demotivating if they're not allowed to accumulate the stats they consider important when they feel they've earned the opportunity.

The parallel that I can draw is the running back that gets 7 carries for 80 yards on a drive from his on 20 to the other team's goal line and then a DT is put in as the big back for the last carry to get the TD.  You betcha the RB is gonna be upset and I think this is an equivalent situation in baseball.

Maybe it's just the Bears fan in me and the Payton / Perry episode still bothers this city.
Chuck - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:56 AM EDT (#184651) #
I don't agree with the implicit assumption that the Jays starters will continue to be innings eaters like they have recently.

There was no such assumption.
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:03 PM EDT (#184652) #
I don't agree with the implicit assumption that the Jays starters will continue to be innings eaters like they have recently.

There was no such assumption.
I think I misinterpreted your quote which I am restating below:

Maybe, just maybe, you don't need 7 relievers, at least when the starters are pitching as well as they are?

My understanding was that you meant we don't need 7 relievers if we're getting the pitching we are right now and that we should thus shorten our bullpen.  I think in order to suggest such a move, you have to imply that the starters' performances will continue.
Chuck - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:07 PM EDT (#184654) #
I agree that demoralizing may have been a strong / incorrect word, but if meant in the context of discouraging / demotivating, then I agree with the comment that yanking him could have been demoralizing. 

I ask this in all sincerity. Do you honestly think that the mental makeup of pro athletes is that fragile? While it's a given that every pitcher wants to keep on pitching, no matter what the game situation is, is Marcum's self-esteem so hanging by a thread that yanking him in the 9th could possibly have had a deleterious effect? I just can't see it.
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:12 PM EDT (#184655) #
I ask this in all sincerity. Do you honestly think that the mental makeup of pro athletes is that fragile? While it's a given that every pitcher wants to keep on pitching, no matter what the game situation is, is Marcum's self-esteem so hanging by a thread that yanking him in the 9th could possibly have had a deleterious effect? I just can't see it.

I do.  I think back-ups being asked to be traded in order to get more playing time is an extreme example of the situation I'm discussing and those trade demands happen all the time.

I do believe there is a spectrum to this.  Marcum isn't going to go out and pitch a horrible game next outing just because he didn't get an opportunity to finish the game (the same way Frasor isn't going to turn into Rivera by pitching the 9th).  But is Marcum going to spend an extra hour scanning the scouting reports of the other team's bench players next time out?  Maybe not as intently as he would if he knew he'd likely face them.
China fan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:20 PM EDT (#184656) #
     Actually I didn't say that Marcum has a fragile ego that would be destroyed if he is not allowed to finish the game.  I guess the word "demoralizing" isn't exactly le mot juste.   I was simply trying to say that it would be somewhat discouraging or irritating to a pitcher if he's not allowed to go for the shutout when the conditions are ripe for it.  He obviously wanted the shutout, he's a competitive guy, and his pitch count was not dangerously high (I know that can be disputed, but I agree with those who argue that he can handle more than 100 pitches).   So, all else being equal, the manager decided to reward him with a shot at the shutout.   I just don't see much reason for controversy or second-guessing here -- it was a situation where Gibbons had no strong reason to disagree with a pitcher who had a burning desire to finish it out.   Of course Marcum's ego could have handled it if he didn't start the 9th.  He's a professional.  But I think a team's group psychology will hum along at a happier level if the top performers are rewarded with a chance to fulfill their pride and burnish their personal stats along the way.
zeppelinkm - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:31 PM EDT (#184658) #

CJF: I would be very, very, surprised if Marcum decided to stop doing the preparation work that has made him so successful to date  because he didn't get his shot to finish the game. I know that's just an example you created to make your point, but it's the one point I disagree with in your argument.

I agree with your point that letting him try and finish the ball game was the right move.

It's Marcum. He's been lights out this year but he's not known for pitching deep into games (6 dominant innings is typical for him), and then when he's really mowing them down he can get into the 7th and 8th innings. Here he had a nice little lead, had been really dominating the Rays and was at 98 pitches after 8 innings. At some point, you have to give him a chance to pitch over 100 pitches. Last night seemed like a fine time to try. He could easily throw a 10 pitch inning and be done within 110 pitches and his first CG SO. It didn't work out this time.

 

Chuck - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#184659) #

My understanding was that you meant we don't need 7 relievers if we're getting the pitching we are right now and that we should thus shorten our bullpen.  I think in order to suggest such a move, you have to imply that the starters' performances will continue.

I don't believe those performance will continue indefinitely. Who does? For the short term, act on the assumption that they will continue and shorten the bullpen. When the starters come back to earth, summon reliever #7 from Syracuse.

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:38 PM EDT (#184660) #
CJF: I would be very, very, surprised if Marcum decided to stop doing the preparation work that has made him so successful to date  because he didn't get his shot to finish the game. I know that's just an example you created to make your point, but it's the one point I disagree with in your argument.

I know you agreed with me in general, but I just want to clarify.  I'm not saying that Marcum will stop doing preparation work.  What I'm saying is that he might not go above and beyond the call of duty.  Preparation is a spectrum - there is usually more that can be done.  It's not like a check-mark where you either do it or don't.  And I don't think a single early yank is really going to change anything either.  It's if it becomes consistent that it might start to have an impact.

I hope I'm not coming across as suggesting that Marcum might turn into a baseball version of Billy Joe Hobert, who didn't learn the playbook for the Bills.  I just mean that if he's not given the carrot for becoming the best-prepared pitcher in baseball, maybe he'll settle for being one of the better prepared pitchers.
John Northey - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:39 PM EDT (#184661) #
Add me to the list saying Gibbons did the right thing last night.  I'm betting that Gibbons told Marcum in the 8th that first baserunner means he is gone and the pen is in, then in the 9th with the big lead he was told he had the game until the shutout was lost.  That gives players incentive to perform and clear knowledge of what limits the manager is putting on them.  Also, this game gives Gibbons a better view on Marcum and his limits.  He now knows you can throw the gauntlet down in the 8th and he'll respond, but that after 100 pitches he does tire quickly thus he isn't ready to be a Halladay yet.  Marcum also learned that he just ran out of gas at that point and can try to plan out how to get through it in the future. 

The win came first, as the pen warming in the 8th showed, and once secure the learning became #1 - finding out if Marcum can go 9 innings for both Gibbons and Marcum's sake.

Alex Obal - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:51 PM EDT (#184662) #

IP/GS
Toronto 6.52
Chicago 6.26
Cleveland 6.18
Anaheim 6.09
Oakland 6.06
Seattle 6.02
Kansas City 5.98
Boston 5.97
Minnesota 5.77
Tampa Bay 5.71
Baltimore 5.69
Detroit 5.61
Texas 5.53
New York 5.26
AL average 5.90

Marcum 6.95, probably going down
Burnett 6.05, probably going up
McGowan 6.09, probably going up a bit
Halladay 8.14, probably going down
Litsch 5.56, probably going up a bit

If someone gets hurt, obviously you reconsider. But if everyone stays healthy, I'm not sure it's inevitable that the starters' efficiency will drop off precipitously at any point.
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 01:22 PM EDT (#184663) #
Alex - I agree that our season #'s are probably in-line with what we should expect, but over our last 10 games, only once has the starter not gone 7 innings or more.  That isn't likely to continue.
Chuck - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 01:27 PM EDT (#184664) #

I'm not sure it's inevitable that the starters' efficiency will drop off precipitously at any point.

Alex, you may be right, but here are my counter-arguments.

Three guys currently have ERAs of 3.00 or better. This level of performance likely will not continue, meaning higher pitcher counts in future starts, meaning lower IP/GS.

McGowan and especially Burnett are walking a lot of guys. Until they show improved command, it's hard to see their IP/GS increase.

Jesse Litsch looks like the bride of Josh Towers at the moment. The good Josh Towers, that is. I foresee the occasional start where he gets shelled early (a la Towers), making it difficult for him to appreciably improve his IP/GS (I concede that you said "a bit", I am not trying to put words in your mouth).

The warm weather is coming. League-wide hitting is going to improve. That will mean pitch counts will go up and that will shorten starts.

But I've been wrong once or a thousand times before.

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 01:40 PM EDT (#184666) #
I don't believe those performance will continue indefinitely. Who does? For the short term, act on the assumption that they will continue and shorten the bullpen. When the starters come back to earth, summon reliever #7 from Syracuse.

I don't know enough about the options status of our players, but I don't believe that change is all that easy.

Our bullpen right now is: Accardo, Camp, Carlson, Downs, Frasor, Ryan, and Tallet.

Accardo, Carlson, Downs, and Ryan are probably the top 4 so you wouldn't want to send them down.

I believe that Camp, Frasor, and Tallet are each out of options.  (I'm about 95% certain on Camp and Tallet and about 60% on Frasor as I'm not sure if he used one in '03 or '05).

So unless you're looking at a permanent change, you're likely giving up one of our bullpen arms for nothing.
ayjackson - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#184667) #

McGowan and especially Burnett are walking a lot of guys.

If you take out McGowan's 7-walk start, which you should being a career outlier, he is walking 2.87/9IP, which is not a lot of guys.

And we all know AJ's situation with the curveball.

Chuck - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 01:46 PM EDT (#184668) #
So unless you're looking at a permanent change, you're likely giving up one of our bullpen arms for nothing.

The organization acts as if Frasor has no value to them. Fine, trade him, even if the return is minimal. Then put Wolfe on the Syracuse shuttle.
John Northey - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 01:46 PM EDT (#184669) #

IP/GS
Toronto 6.52
... 5.53
New York 5.26

Wow, didn't notice the Yankees were doing that poorly from their starters. 
Quick rotation check...
Wang: 132 ERA+, 6 1/2 IP per start, 8 starts
Pettite: 109 ERA+, 6.14 IP per start, 7 starts
Mussina: 97 ERA+, 5 1/2 IP per start, 7 starts
Hughes: 46 ERA+, 3 2/3 IP per start, 6 starts and now DL'ed
Kennedy: 49 ERA+, 4.13 IP per start, 5 starts, best game score is a 46
Bruney: 2 IP in his one start April 9th, 0 runs allowed
Rasner: 6 IP, 2 runs in his one start May 4th, ERA sub 1 in AAA over 5 starts with 6.2 IP per start

Ugh. Their kids were stinking up the place something horrible before Hughes went down and I suspect they wish Kennedy would go down too.  Rasner is 27 and has a ML ERA+ of 110 lifetime over 58 1/3 IP so he is probably going to be a nice surprise for them but, like Wang, is a low K guy which always comes with higher risks (especially with Jeter at SS) - 6.8 K/9 IP in the minors, 4.6 K/9 IP in the majors. 

They have 4 guys with 100+ ERA+'s - Rivera, Farnsworth, Joba, and Bruney.  Some guys have scary ERA's but relievers ERA's, especially early in the year, fluctuate a lot.  Odds are the guys in AAA will get a lot of innings though as this pen could be burnt out by mid-season if they don't watch it.  3 guys over 15 IP already plus 6 into double digits for games vs the Jays with no one over 15 IP yet (Carlson is highest at 14 2/3) and 4 guys into double digits for games pitched.  Just 2 guys in the pen below 100 for ERA+ - Accardo and League - showing good management on Gibbons part even if I get frustrated with him sometimes.


Wow, the Jays ERA+ is now 125 overall.  Just, wow.  Last year just guys in the pen were doing that well, among starters just Halladay in '06 & '05, Bush in '04 (no one else over 15 IP did it then), Halladay and two pen guys in '03 for the 15+ IP crowd.  Just, wow.  The Yanks are at 94 btw, Oakland 123 (lead in ERA), Boston 106.  For runs allowed per game the Jays are #1 in the majors at 3.54

Just imagine if our hitters ever got hot.
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 01:49 PM EDT (#184670) #
The organization acts as if Frasor has no value to them. Fine, trade him, even if the return is minimal.

I don't see how this benefits the organization though.  He's insurance in the bullpen right now.  Why give up an asset for nothing (or minimal return)?

Depth is valuable - check out our SS position right now.
John Northey - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 02:00 PM EDT (#184671) #
Say, has everyone else noticed how Accardo is now a ROOGY? (Right handed One Out Guy)

Since April 18th (3rd loss, 2nd blown save) he has appeared 6 times and thrown just 3 2/3 IP with 1 hit and 1 walk and 0 strikeouts.  6 runners inherited and none scored.  12 batters faced, or 2 per game.

While ROOGY's are not a great use of resources, it does seem to allow Accardo to be of value while he figures out how to get his key pitches back ala last year. 

Magpie - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 02:09 PM EDT (#184673) #
Camp and Tallet are certainly out of options. Frasor's situation is a little murky because of his injury year. The Dodgers would normally have had to add him to the 40 man roster for 2003. If they got a mulligan because of the injury that cost him the entire 2001 season, they would have been able to send him down in 2003 without using one of the three option years. The Jays definitely exercised it in 2004 and 2006, of course.
King Rat - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 02:16 PM EDT (#184674) #
Regarding the bullpen: I can understand that people are unwilling to accept that the rotation will continue to be this good, for the simple reason that it almost certainly won't. However, the argument about whether the team could afford to cut the bullpen to six in the face of the likely regression of the rotation seems odd to me, given that the Jays have been operating, for all intents and purposes, with a five man bullpen over the last couple of weeks. It seems to me that sending down (subject, of course, to contractual issues-I don't know if Frasor has an option left or not) your seventh man and bringing up Inglett or Thigpen or Lind again could only help the team. For what it's worth, Frasor has played in the minors in only two of the years that he's also appeared in the majors-whether that means he still has an option left I really don't know.

As far as Marcum is concerned, I think it would have been the right move to bring in Ryan had the Jays not exploded in the eighth. But I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would object to a very sharp, under 100 pitches Marcum going out to try and get the shutout with a six run lead. I'll admit that I'm a conservative on pitch count issues, but what anyone would be worried about mystifies me.

Magpie - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#184675) #
Earl Weaver used to say there is no right number of pitchers to carry - if you're going well, nine is too many because there's only enough work for your four starters and one reliever. And if you're going badly twelve is not enough. Twelve is obviously way, way too many when the starters are pitching this well (and that's without including Wolfe and League, who aren't even with the team at the moment.)

It's not likely that the starting pitching will remain at this level, although youneverknow. In the meantime, perhaps we could enter some space-time continuum and undo the Jason Frasor trade. It was a good trade, it helped both teams, but right now Jayson Werth would be more useful in Toronto than Frasor.

OK, that's not going to happen.

katman - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#184679) #
RE: Shortstops, from MLB.com:
"As a precautionary measure, Toronto purchased the contract of infielder Jorge Velandia from Triple-A Syracuse to add some depth to the infield. For the time being, Jays utility man Marco Scutaro will man short, but Velandia provides a backup solution."
If that's true, we're back to a serious discussion of Gibbon's weakness as a manger, and also the organization's weakness in not forcing this. Scutaro is a mediocre hitter and defender both, used when other options are not options. Venlandia is having a career year. An organization that doesn't use this opportunity to put him in and see what he might have, and substitutes Scutaro instead, is poorly led.

"In order to clear room on the active roster for Velandia, the Jays optioned struggling outfielder Adam Lind to Triple-A. Shannon Stewart had recently garnered the regular job in left field, leaving little playing time for Lind, who was 1-for-19 at the plate since being promoted on April 26. "Velandia takes Lind's spot," Ricciardi explained. "Because we have to have someone here. Lind's just got to play. He's a young kid and he has to get at-bats. It's not going to do him any good to sit up here and not play."

I like Lind, but this actually makes sense.

Interesting ERA+ figures. I do hope AJ gets going, because he has definitely regressed from last year. I'm starting to wonder if this is a focus issue - when Doc went down, he did seem to focus more and rise to the challenge. I do hope he turns it around... because if we're thinking "I hope he makes room for (unproven) Purcey in 2009," we've given up on 2008. If he continues to struggle, our bullpen does need a kick-butt setup guy and closer option who can go in and rise to the challenge of tight situations. Right now we do not have one (Accardo stinks, Downsie I love ya but you're not that guy). Besides which, I'm still not confident Ryan won't blow up or blow out.

RE: Litsch. When your 5th starter is around league average, that's impressive. He has one start messing up that score, too, so I expect it to improve. And I think we can now make it official and say Marcum is for real.

I'd keep Frasor, precisely for that insurance and because of his low trade value. Wolfe on the Syracuse shuttle is an interesting alternative that makes logical sense, but I'm going with the "you really can never have too much pitching" philosophy.
John Northey - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 03:07 PM EDT (#184681) #
Wow, didn't know Werth was doing that well.
266-346-532 for an OPS+ of 123 in Philly.
Last year he was 298-404-459 119 OPS+ in Philly, where he signed in Dec 06 as a free agent for $850k.

Up to 260-351-439 105 OPS+ lifetime now over 1236 PA's which is basically equal to 2 full seasons. 

Still a good trade for the Jays as LA lost him for nothing after he missed '06.  So we have a serviceable reliever (115 ERA+ lifetime over 258 IP here) in exchange for a guy who would've been a 4th outfielder here in '04/'05.  I don't see JP offering $850k to a guy who missed a season after being a backup before that.

Wildrose - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 03:11 PM EDT (#184682) #
Looking at baseball-reference this morning, we have Marcum leading the way with an ERA+ of 158, McGowan second at 139, and Halladay 3rd at 137.

To further reinforce just how good that is - last year Haren had the 6th best ERA+ in the AL with 137.


In terms of context however, it should be noted the offensive environment in the A.L.  is at a low not seen since the early nineties,  keep this in mind regarding the dominance of our pitchers and the seemingly struggling nature of the Blue Jay hitters.

There's lots of discussion about this issue to be found here. Is it the weather, the emergence of some good young pitchers in the A.L., or a sample size fluke?



ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 03:18 PM EDT (#184684) #
In terms of context however, it should be noted the offensive environment in the A.L.  is at a low not seen since the early nineties,  keep this in mind regarding the dominance of our pitchers and the seemingly struggling nature of the Blue Jay hitters.

ERA+ considers that factor though.  ERA+ demonstrates how you're doing compared to other pitchers that year and is almost completely non-indicative as to how a pitcher is doing versus hitters.  Conversely, ERA demonstrates a pitcher's effectiveness against the hitters while being almost completely non-indicative as to how one pitcher is doing versus the rest of the pitchers in the league.
ComebyDeanChance - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 03:35 PM EDT (#184685) #
Venlandia is having a career year. An organization that doesn't use this opportunity to put him in and see what he might have, and substitutes Scutaro instead, is poorly led.

I'm fairly confident this is the first time a major league baseball team has been accused of being 'poorly led' on the basis of not starting Jorge Velandia.
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 04:02 PM EDT (#184687) #
I do hope AJ gets going, because he has definitely regressed from last year. I'm starting to wonder if this is a focus issue - when Doc went down, he did seem to focus more and rise to the challenge.

According to Mockingbird's analysis, it's a pitch selection thing.  Burnett ditched the 2-seamer fastball in exchange for a cutter.

Conversely, Marcum added a 2-seamer over the offseason and that pitch seems to be the cause of a lot of his success.

Some of the comments I've read about AJ this season (including spring training) make me think of Miguel Batista.  They both seem to overthink / overcomplicate things.  Batista with his always wanting to use all 8 or so pitches of his.  AJ not thinking that having one of the best K rates and GB% in the majors is good enough.

Venlandia is having a career year. An organization that doesn't use this opportunity to put him in and see what he might have, and substitutes Scutaro instead, is poorly led.

We are talking about this guy, right?

I think some perspective on expected offense from the SS position is needed if we're going to criticize Scutaro.  This year, the AL has gotten an 88 OPS+ from the SS position.  Scutaro has put up a 91 OPS+ so far.  That's not a performance that screams out "replace me for a career minor leaguer who is older than me"
92-93 - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 04:24 PM EDT (#184690) #
"But I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would object to a very sharp, under 100 pitches Marcum going out to try and get the shutout with a six run lead. I'll admit that I'm a conservative on pitch count issues, but what anyone would be worried about mystifies me."

Here's the problem us crazies have : IP last year = 159. 1st half ERA = 3.62 ; 2nd half ERA = 4.68. It was fairly obvious to the observer that Shaun broke down last year, and he certainly showed the tendency to start games off very strong and then fade as it got late in the game, say the 7th inning. When you have an extremely rested bullpen there is zero advantage to having him come out there and throw that 9th inning, especially after sitting on the bench for 20+ minutes thinking he was done for the night.
Heraclitus - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 04:30 PM EDT (#184692) #
Sayeth the game notes:
Prior to tonight’s game, the Blue Jays placed both IF David Eckstein (strained right hip flexor) & IF John McDonald (sprained right ankle) on the 15-day DL, both retro to May 6…The Jays have also recalled IF Joe Inglett from Syracuse (AAA).
robertdudek - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 04:32 PM EDT (#184693) #
Whether you think it's right or not, there is no chance a major league manager is going to pull a guy who's thrown 98 pitches in a 6-0 game with one inning to go. Complete game shutouts have a special significance for pitchers, especially now that they are so rare. There's no point in discussing this issue until one of you guys becomes a major league GM or field manager.
ComebyDeanChance - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 04:43 PM EDT (#184694) #
Whether you think it's right or not, there is no chance a major league manager is going to pull a guy who's thrown 98 pitches in a 6-0 game with one inning to go. Complete game shutouts have a special significance for pitchers
Exactly. Until baseball players are replaced by stratomatic cards, pitchers in Marcum's situation are going to be given a well-deserved shot at the shut-out.
China fan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#184695) #
      Eckstein and McDonald are put on the DL, but only Inglett is called up as a replacement.   Is it possible that a trade is in the works?
      If not, I suppose someone like Pedro Lopez might get a call-up.    Or, if the Jays figure that they have enough infielders, they could opt for Coats or Adams for outfield depth.
 

92-93 - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 04:48 PM EDT (#184696) #
"There's no point in discussing this issue until one of you guys becomes a major league GM or field manager."

I don't get this opinion. Isn't the purpose of this site to discuss the Blue Jays? If many of us think Gibbons is doing the wrong thing I don't see the problem in voicing that opinion. There's a point to it as much as there is to anything discussed on this site.
ayjackson - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 04:50 PM EDT (#184697) #

The Globe report said to expect another roster move tomorrow.  Could be close to a trade, I guess.

What would it take to get Bay out of Pittsburg - they'd probably prefer a July bidding war to a May trade, but they can't keep Pearce and McCutcheon in the minors forever.

ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 04:53 PM EDT (#184698) #
I don't get this opinion. Isn't the purpose of this site to discuss the Blue Jays? If many of us think Gibbons is doing the wrong thing I don't see the problem in voicing that opinion. There's a point to it as much as there is to anything discussed on this site.

Agreed entirely, even though I completely disagree with your opinion on last nights 9th inning.
Thomas - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 05:08 PM EDT (#184700) #
Or, if the Jays figure that they have enough infielders, they could opt for Coats or Adams for outfield depth.

I would say the other move is likely to result in an outfielder/bat joining the team. With Scutaro getting most of the starts, the Jays still have Inglett as the main infield reserve and Velandia as the backup SS. Inglett can serve as the spare outfielder, but another infielder would slot behind both of those two guys on the depth chart. With the Jays going to Philly this weekend, they need an outfielder/pinch-hitter or two on the roster.

I think it's very tough to say Gibbons did anything wrong yesterday. Marcum's never had a CG and was working on a CGSO. His pinch count wasn't unreasonably high and there was no other pressing reason to pull him. In that scenario you give your guy every opportunity to finish the game and get the shutout. He was also working on a one-hitter. Given what finishing that game meant to Marcum, I don't see how any manager could pull him.

Mike Green - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 05:21 PM EDT (#184701) #
Apparently, managers have taken out starters with a shutout after precisely 8 innings and under 100 pitches thrown 17 times in 2007-08.  Not so long ago, the Red Sox took out a knuckleballer with a 5-0 lead.  The Tigers pulled out Bonderman with a 12-0 lead after 8 innings and 95 pitches last year.  Here's another example for Johan Santana.

I suspect that Gibbons wanted to give Marcum his first shutout.  I somehow doubt that Marcum actually would care that much; he seems to have an understanding about what a team needs to win but that is purely a subjective opinion on my part.  It seems to me that the complete game 6-0 shutout and the 3 run, 1 inning save by the ace reliever have a lot in common. I am hoping that both will become rarer.



China fan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 05:26 PM EDT (#184702) #
   So, for the second time this season, the Jays go into a game with only 24 players on the team.   Excluding pitchers and the starting nine, they have only three bench players available.  One of them is the back-up catcher, so there's only two players to back up the entire infield and outfield.   Makes you wonder if this whole depth thing is over-rated......    Or are the Jays being a little reckless?     (The previous time this happened was when Frank Thomas was unceremoniously dumped on such short notice that a replacement wasn't called up until the next game.) 
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 05:30 PM EDT (#184703) #
This discussion and the QOTD made me think of Mike Witt (only player to be a starter and reliever in no-hitters).

April 11, 1990 would have been a difficult situation to be in as a manager.  First start of the year for Langston.  No-hitter through 7.  99 pitches thrown, but this is in the era where 120+ pitches isn't that big (and Langston was one of those guys that could do so).  Do you let Langston come out for the 8th?

I wasn't there and didn't watch the game, but I'm stunned Langston was pulled.  The year before he'd gone 109 pitches on opening day, so 99 doesn't seem too big.  His 7th inning was 3-up, 3-down with on baserunners.  And at 29, he should have been in his prime for endurance.

I'm guessing there are a lot of people writing comments here that would have gone with Witt.
greenfrog - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 05:52 PM EDT (#184704) #
Joe Sheehan issued another hatchet job today on the Jays on baseballprospectus.com (subscribers only).

In a nutshell? Of Thomas's replacements at DH (Barajas, Diaz, Stairs, Stewart and Lind), only Stairs has hit adequately--and both Stairs (LF) and Thomas (DH) could have played in the same lineup anyway. Sheehan calls the decision to release Thomas "ridiculous" because the Jays didn't have a proper plan for a replacement player. He thinks the team is making the same mistake (a personnel decision based on a too-small sample size) by demoting Lind. He also says the lack of offense has caused the Jays to squander their recent run of good pitching--"one of the best run-prevention stretches any team will have all year."

The irony IMO is that Sheehan is judging the Jays (8-9 in the post-Thomas era) based on a very small sample size. He also seems to assume that the hitting won't come around, and that the great pitching + defense won't last. And that the Jays won't simply pick up a more effective right-handed bat (or versatile player) than Thomas, who is hitting an unspectacular 267/400/356 for Oakland.



Wildrose - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 05:58 PM EDT (#184705) #
ERA+ considers that factor though. 

Your right. I should be more clear. I think there's a bit of a halo effect around the pitching ( which has been outstanding), but somewhat of a demonization ( not necessarily by you, but in general) in comparison  of  the hitters. I think the poor team hitting is somewhat reflective of a league wide morass in this area. The Jays have scored 10 runs less than league average in a hitters park, so the hitting deserves some criticism, but  these ridiculously low scoring games we've seen, in a general context is unusual. 
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 06:25 PM EDT (#184707) #
It seems to me that the complete game 6-0 shutout and the 3 run, 1 inning save by the ace reliever have a lot in common. I am hoping that both will become rarer.

I can see how your analogy applies to this specific instance, but disagree in general with your comparison.

There is value in a starter being able to pitch a lot of innings.  Complete games can allow a scrambling bullpen to get on track and put everyone back in their usual role instead of having to just go with the rested arm.  As such, regardless of your thoughts about last night, you should be able to agree that there are easily identifiable circumstances where a CG 6-0 SO can provide value to a team, by allowing you to save high-value resources (your bullpen) for higher-leverage situations (anything other than a 6-0 9th).

However, the same cannot be said for 3 run, 1 inning saves by ace relievers.  This is always using a high-value resource in a low-leverage situation.


robertdudek - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 06:34 PM EDT (#184708) #
Sheehan has it exactly right.

No matter what a player thinks of a particular situation, releasing a player without an adequate replacement is a blunder. The reality is that the Jays had no adequate replacement to hit against lefthanded pitching in Thomas's stead. And they still don't.

And he's right about Lind as well. Why call him up at all if you are going to demote him after 19 AB. It makes no sense. This management team changes direction more rapidly than an NFL tailback.

And Sheehan is right to note that, in retrospect, much of the Jays great pitching since Thomas was released has been squandered because of a weak offense. That is a statement about the past, not a prediction about the future. Sample size is important when trying to predict the future, not when trying to understand the past.

PS. I should have added "pitching a one-hitter" and "unless the manager is being extra careful due to health issues" to my qualifiers.

And my point about relevant discussion is that there are far more important and controversial issues surrounding this team than whether or not to leave Marcum in when he's pitching lights out. My personal belief is that there is too much babying in baseball of starting pitchers. I believe that, within reason, it is best to slowly build up a young pitcher's "pitch tolerance" and that managers are too quick to take out pitchers who are pitching great when they reach 100-115 pitches. There's never been any convincing evidence that there is an increased injury risk of injury for a mature pitcher at the 110 pitch mark.
scottt - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 06:35 PM EDT (#184709) #
Add me to the list saying Gibbons did the right thing last night.

It was an important milestone for Marcum.

"That's the first time Gibby has sent me out for the ninth," Marcum said. "I was excited to go back out there and the fans were behind me. I wish I could have got it done."

All Marcum did was pitch to contact and almost got 3 outs. It's not like he had to strike out the side.

"It's a little frustrating going out there in the sixth and seventh inning and its still 0-0," Marcum said. "It's nice to get a little breathing room."

It's a long year with a lot of ups and down. It's important to let the players savor the ups. They're not machines.

Same with the home crowd.
Wildrose - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 06:37 PM EDT (#184710) #
I wonder if the Jays are keeping an open roster spot for this guy ?  Ricciardi has always had a man crush on him and by my reckoning he'll clear 10 day waivers either  tomorrow  or Saturday.  I'm not sure if he'd help or not ?
92-93 - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 06:49 PM EDT (#184711) #
Sometimes the evidence can come from your own eyes. Marcum breaks down late in games. He looked tired at the end of last season. Obviously this is all in my humble opinion.

"There's never been any convincing evidence that there is an increased injury risk of injury for a mature pitcher at the 110 pitch mark."

If you want specific evidence to guys breaking down after going 110+, I point to AJ Burnett last year. 127, 117, 130, and he was done. Or let me guess, he's not mature?
ChicagoJaysFan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 07:05 PM EDT (#184712) #

If you want specific evidence to guys breaking down after going 110+, I point to AJ Burnett last year. 127, 117, 130, and he was done. Or let me guess, he's not mature?


I'm not reinforcing the other claim, but anecdotal evidence proves nothing. One could just as easily point to Roy Halladay's second-half last season.

Starting on July 12, he lowered his ERA from 4.66 to a season-ending 3.71 through pitch counts of: 112, 111, 126, 105, 108, 97, 120, 111, 124, 126, 123, 100, 110, and 115.

The Halladay and AJ examples prove nothing in broad strokes - although they do indicate that you likely need to handle each of them differently.
scottt - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 07:09 PM EDT (#184713) #
Game Day: It's the battle of number fives as Litsch goes against Jackson in the rubber match. 7:07 PM



Litsch was hit by pretty much every Rays last time around and I think Hill is the only Jay with good numbers against Jackson.

If I had to put money down, it wouldn't be on the good guys.
Chuck - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 07:39 PM EDT (#184714) #

"Someone from outside the organization" will be added to the team, reports Jamie Cambell, quoting JP Ricciardi.

Brad Wilkerson? Jacque Jones? Jason Michaels? Barry Bonds?

Okay, I'm kidding about the last one.

jmoney - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 07:49 PM EDT (#184715) #
One thing I'll say about the Jays. They absolutely love hitting into tailer made double plays.
timpinder - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 08:03 PM EDT (#184716) #

According to Blair, Wilkerson will likely be with the team tomorrow.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/baseball

timpinder - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 08:11 PM EDT (#184718) #

Wilkerson probably won't light the world on fire, but he's one of those rare left-handed hitters who is actually better against left-handed pitchers.  If he's signed he'll probably DH against lefties and he provides insurance in the OF.  He hasn't had an OPS+ over 104 since 2004, and he's not Jason Bay, but he does make the team a little better so I won't have a problem with it if the Jays do in fact sign him.

I'd still prefer the Jays give Lind a longer look, though.

greenfrog - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 08:12 PM EDT (#184719) #
Sheehan has it exactly right.

I just don't see what difference Thomas would have made over the last 17 games. The Jays' problem has been lack of production up and down the lineup. The release of Thomas is essentially irrelevant to the conversation about the team's overall offense. The Jays were mediocre with him because the team as a whole wasn't hitting; they have been mediocre without him for the same reason. I can understand Sheehan's point in theory (about not releasing veterans without having a replacement lined up). But in terms of the team's actual performance, I don't think Thomas's departure has made much difference.

Lind's demotion is another issue altogether. I would prefer to see Lind given a chance to play everyday in LF. And I'm not crazy about the way the Jays have handled him (the delayed callup, the public announcement that Stewart was taking over as the full-time LF, the quick benching and demotion).

I also prefer to see the glass as half full. Thanks to the pitching, the team has just about righted itself, and quickly. The pitching has kept the team in the race. Now it's up to the team as a whole (offense, pitching, defense) to take it to the next level.
robertdudek - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 08:31 PM EDT (#184722) #
If you accept the proposition that Thomas would be expected to hit better against LHP than the players that have batted instead, then you also accept the proposition that the offense would likely have scored more runs in the past 17 games than it actually did.

How many more and what difference it would have made, is unknown. But the basic principle at work here is that more expected runs equals more expected wins.

And that, at it's heart, is what running a contending baseball team is about: you want to maximize your expected wins.

GregJP - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 08:43 PM EDT (#184723) #
If Rance Mulliniks says "let the ball travel" or "seeing the ball well" one more time I'm going to expel projectile vomit in the general direction of the cathode ray tube.

Also, I've been watching baseball since the early 70s through all of the Expos and Jays years and I've never seen a team suck so badly at the plate.  It's become almost comical.

Mike D - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 08:46 PM EDT (#184725) #

There's never been any convincing evidence that there is an increased injury risk of injury for a mature pitcher at the 110 pitch mark.

Agreed.  I highly recommend the Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers, and in particular James' critique of Pitcher Abuse Points.  He coupled a broad selection of starting pitchers comparable in every way except PAP, and found that (a) the "abused" pitchers were not more likely to get hurt, and (b) the "abused" pitchers were not more likely to become less effective.

James' main point was that most arm injuries are violent, like when you sprain your ankle or break your leg.  They are very seldom caused gradually by ordinary wear and tear.  They can happen when throwing pitch 115, but they can also happen when throwing pitch 5.   Mike Marshall has made the case that an arm will become more resilient by throwing more, not less (at least when the pitcher is mature).  Then again, Marshall hates the traditional pitching motion.

Warmups and pregame/postgame/off-day maintenance are also very important to a pitcher's health.  All this is to say that there isn't a linear relationship between in-game pitch count and risk to a pitcher's arm.

scottt - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:07 PM EDT (#184726) #
Another Quality Start.
scottt - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:12 PM EDT (#184727) #
Rolen is still the man.

Scutaro is hot right now.

Rios isn't doing so well in the leadoff spot, now is he?

robertdudek - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:16 PM EDT (#184728) #
If Rance Mulliniks says "let the ball travel" or "seeing the ball well" ...

I've never heard Rance say "seeing the ball well", but I'm a little tired of hearing "seeing the ball good".

scottt - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:20 PM EDT (#184729) #
I don't see the issue with Marcum. If he's to improve his endurance, you have to stretch him a bit from time to time. You can always pull him early in the next game. The bullpen is getting rusty anyway.
scottt - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 09:32 PM EDT (#184731) #
The offense is starting to wake up... in the late innings.



Mike Green - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 10:04 PM EDT (#184734) #
It's obvious that Gibbons did not use Frasor yesterday because he was saving him for a higher leverage situation today!
scottt - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 10:16 PM EDT (#184737) #
It's obvious that Gibbons did not use Frasor yesterday because he was saving him for a higher leverage situation today!

I wouldn't be surprised if Gibbons go to AJ before he uses Frasor.
scottt - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 10:33 PM EDT (#184738) #
My bad. I missed a couple innings. I didn't realized Frasor pitched before BJ.
King Ryan - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 10:58 PM EDT (#184739) #
Shaun Camp in a critical spot . . .
Mike Green - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:21 PM EDT (#184740) #
Another painful loss.  There have been somewhere between 10 and 12 of them so far, depending on how you count.  The club was hitting .217 with runners in scoring position before tonight...
Grimlock - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:35 PM EDT (#184741) #
Me Grimlock blame Rance Mulliniks for this loss. At the beginning of the top of the 13th, Mulliniks said, "Assuming Tampa doesn't score here..." Once he said that, the game was, for all intents and purposes, over.
robertdudek - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:38 PM EDT (#184742) #
Decent brawl in Texas-Seattle game. Gabbard threw a high brush-back pitch at Sexson. Sexson charged the mound and threw his helmet at Gabbard, hitting him in the back (after Gabbard turned his back and dove to the ground). Also featured was Milton Bradley picking up an irate Gerald Laird sumo style and pushing him towards the dugout.
robertdudek - Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:44 PM EDT (#184743) #
Interesting turn of events....

Sexson was, of course, tossed from the game. Cairo pinch hit for him and saw 3 more balls to walk. Betancourt then hit an infield single into the SS hole. Both runners advanced on a throwing error. And now Gabbard is out of the game - keep in mind Texas leads 4-0 and this is the 4th inning. Probable injury for Gabbard as a result of the brawl.

jmoney - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:24 AM EDT (#184748) #
Jays didn't deserve the game after wasting Rios' leadoff triple and not plating him. Bums.
China fan - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:58 AM EDT (#184751) #
    It will be interesting to see if Wilkerson's arrival will lead to the benching of Shannon Stewart, at least temporarily.  Stewart was one of the goats in the latest loss.  He was hitless in six appearances and failed to bring home Rios from third base with none out in the 10th inning.  (Of course Matt Stairs was equally bad last night, but at least he's been having a relatively good season overall.)   Ricciardi and Gibbons are desperate to do anything to light a fire under this team, and I wouldn't be surprised if Wilkerson is thrown into the lineup heavily over the next few games, at the expense of Stewart especially.
     Gregg Zaun, bless him, is also trying to light a fire under the under-achievers in the lineup.  His comments after the game were very blunt and implicitly criticized Stewart and Stairs in particular.  He described it as a "pathetic" performance by the entire team, and he specifically mentioned the failure to bring home Rios from third base with none out:   "A guy leads off with a triple, it should be automatic with this team. You have to find a way to get it done. This isn't a league where the best you can is good enough. You have to get the job done."   Amen.
rtcaino - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 01:07 AM EDT (#184752) #
Shaun Camp in a critical spot . . .

I was surprised that no reliever pitched more than one inning. I was down with leaving Carlson in for the start of the ninth, given that he got two outs on two pitches, breaking two bats.

Too bad Camp got hit tonight. I was hoping he had miraculously transformed into a right handed BJ Ryan. He still may have, his pitches have nice movement on them. In previous outings, he looked very impressive.
Magpie - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 03:10 AM EDT (#184756) #
April 11, 1990 would have been a difficult situation to be in as a manager.  First start of the year for Langston.  No-hitter through 7.  99 pitches thrown, but this is in the era where 120+ pitches isn't that big (and Langston was one of those guys that could do so).  Do you let Langston come out for the 8th?

I wasn't there and didn't watch the game, but I'm stunned Langston was pulled.

That would not have happened in 1989 or 1991 - it was a circumstance unique to 1990. A labour dispute delayed the beginning of spring training - the teams locked the players out of camp from February 15 until March 18. The season began on time, but there was universal recognition that the starting pitchers simply hadn't had enough time to get stretched out in preparation for the season. The scoring rules were even changed to make it possible for a starting pitcher to be credited with a Win even if he didn't complete five innings.

The 1990 season saw the some of the lowest complete game figures in baseball history, and it was the Blue Jays who led the way. No team in history had ever gone through a season with fewer complete games (6) than the 1990 Jays.
Magpie - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 03:16 AM EDT (#184757) #
My personal belief is that there is too much babying in baseball of starting pitchers. I believe that, within reason, it is best to slowly build up a young pitcher's "pitch tolerance" and that managers are too quick to take out pitchers who are pitching great when they reach 100-115 pitches.

I agree absolutely, totally, completely. Unreservedly! I would definitely have sent Marcum back out to give him a chance to complete the shutout.

I care more about the time of the game and the stress within the game than the number of pitches thrown anyway. It had been a close game for most of the night - but it had been played at a good quick pace.
brent - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 05:34 AM EDT (#184766) #

game 36- WPA heroes Hill (6), Overbay ((7), Accardo (3), Downs (4)      WPA let downs Camp*, Stairs(10)*, Stewart (8), Scutaro (4), Barajas (9)

* means more than -.300

The Jays have had 3 consecutive games and three out of four games with -.300 WPA before. This was their first game with two players in the same game do it.  

katman - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 05:02 PM EDT (#184837) #
" I'm fairly confident this is the first time a major league baseball team has been accused of being 'poorly led' on the basis of not starting Jorge Velandia."

I'm fairly confident this is the first time a major league baseball team has had Marco Scutaro as the alternative. To say nothing of having Marco Scurtaro in a year where he isn't even hitting very well relative to his own career record.

This is a short-term alternative, either way. We know what we have in Scutaro. Play Velandia and see what we have. It's not rocket science.
katman - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 05:19 PM EDT (#184842) #
Retract that last post.

Scutaro's OPS + of 91 seems hard to fathom, but if that's so he is less useless with a bat than he seems. I was also given to understand that Velandia was a better fielder, which makes a difference. Unfortunately, the available data seems to be a too-small sample size. Velandia is having a hotter than usual year, and I'm curious to see if it might keep going. But lacking fielding data, I'm going to have to defer to the scouts et. al.
ChicagoJaysFan - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 05:37 PM EDT (#184850) #
I'm fairly confident this is the first time a major league baseball team has had Marco Scutaro as the alternative. To say nothing of having Marco Scurtaro in a year where he isn't even hitting very well relative to his own career record.

Can you explain a little further what you mean by this?  I don't understand why you say this is the first time a major league team had Scutaro as an alternative.  I also have trouble understanding why you say he isn't hitting well relative to his own career record.

For Scutaro being an alternative ... he had over 300 ABs each of the last 4 years and his teams won 86, 88, 93, and 76 games.  He's definitely been a key back-up before, and successful at it.

As to his hitting relative to his own career ... His OBP is at a career high right now (.366 versus career .322 and prior peak of .350).  His OPS+ of 91 is the second highest in his career (career mark of 86 and prior peak of 96).  And his OPS isn't too far off of his career mark (.678 this year versus career .703).

I don't think Scutaro is a starter, but I really don't understand the issues some have with him as a utility infielder.

Play Velandia and see what we have. It's not rocket science.

Why do we know what we have in Scutaro, but not in Velandia, who is older?
ChicagoJaysFan - Friday, May 09 2008 @ 05:40 PM EDT (#184851) #
Retract that last post.

And thus my last post can probably be retracted - I must have started looking at things just before you posted.
TDIB 08 May 2008 | 93 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.