Bringing up Lind I agree with. As for Cannon, a 261/397/396 line in Triple A (if representative of his ability) doen't translate into much of use at the major league level. Maybe 240/360/350 ??? (based on my hazy recollection of mle's and no park adjustments).

When your offense consist of walking and hitting singles, it's a recipe for frustration because you have to string together so many to score.

• Zaun? 92 OPS+ at age 37 with 2005, 2006, and 2007 OPS+ being 94, 112, and 98.  With Zaun you're getting what you should expect
• Overbay?  105 OPS+ after last year at 85 with having a significant injury and a career 110 OPS+.  I think you're getting just about what you expect
• Hill? 100 OPS+ versus career 98.  Including this one, his OPS+ in each year of his career are 92, 91, 107, 100.  I think you're getting what you expect
• Rolen?  129 OPS+ versus career 126.  I think you're getting what you expect (maybe better)
• Eckstein?  At 33 playing SS, you expect a bit of a decline.  His last 6 seasons, he's averaged an OPS+ of 85.  This year he is at 77.  I think you're getting what you expect.
• Stewart?  He's 34 now.  His last 3 years, his OPS+ has been 87, 88, and 101.  78 is probably a bit lower than what you'd expect, but not by much.
• Wells?  3rd highest OPS+ in his 7th full season.  Getting exactly what you expect (maybe even more)
• Rios?  Not doing what you expect - clearly.
• Stairs?  He's 40. His 117 OPS+ this year is almost equal to his career average of 120.  You're getting more than you expect.

"I like everything about Wilkerson," Toronto skipper John Gibbons said prior to Wednesday's game against the Angels. "We've been winning with him in there. He's a very good outfielder. He's got a good eye at the plate."

"However, despite Gibbons' confidence in Wilkerson, the hitter has struggled since Toronto signed him as a free agent on May 9. Through his first 12 games with the Blue Jays, Wilkerson has hit .167 (7-for-42), with one home run, two RBIs and four runs scored.

....Gibbons does not believe Wilkerson's struggles will last long, though.

"I think with some steady at-bats, he's going to have a nice year," Gibbons said of Wilkerson, who belted 32 homers in 2004 for the Expos. "He always has. He's a baseball player. He plays the game the right way."

Always has. Hmm, career stats for Mr. Wilkerson right here. Last good year appears to be 2004, and if you want someone who walks a lot and bats left, you already have Overbay.

There's a fine line between encouraging players, and being delusional.

If it was merely mediocre with runners in scoring position, or even a bit below average, the record be a lot better.

To Ryan's point, there are currently four teams with an OPS+ of exactly 94. Toronto has the highest OBP of this lot meaing that their 94 is "better" than the other teams' 94 (with apologies to George Orwell). Here are each team's R/G:

Min 4.39
Bal 4.15
Sea 4.13
Tor 3.77

With more normal situational luck, the Jays could be scoring about 1/2 run a game more than they are. They would still be below league average, but more in line with their OPS+.

Continuing with this "back of a napkin" analysis, let's give the Jays 24 more runs scored, for a RF/RA of 205/188, good for a .543 winning percentage, a 26-22 record rather than 23-25.

So we lose two games and we're back trying to rebuild the Jays in a day.  These two losses were frustrating, especially considering the Angels' pen did everything they could to let the Jays win (save walking in the tying and winning runs).  We're still playing well enough to win our share of games, and that's with Rios and (until recently) Hill severely wetting the bed in the 2 and 3 holes.

My eyes tell me that Wilkerson has hit the ball hard at a lot of people in the past week or two.  Mike Keenan once said that when you're in a slump, it actually starts before the results turn negative and ends similarly prior to the return of positive results.  This may be the case with Wilkerson and I'd like to leave him in the lineup for a while yet to see if those balls start finding the outfield grass.

the bottom line is that team OPS with RISP is a good 100 points lower than team OPS without RISP.

that's a crazy difference, especially since on average, teams hit BETTER with RISP than otherewise.

there's only 4 teams in the league whose OPS with RISP is significantly (i.e. 10+ points) lower with RISP than it is overall - Boston, Detroit, New York, and Toronto.

Not surprisingly, 3 of those offenses are amongst the most unexplainably dissappointing so far.

As for Boston, that's kind of a scary number - their offense should be better than it already is.

Here's the league wide OPS differential between Overall and w/RISP:

• MIN: +.125
• BAL: +.121
• OAK: +.097
• CHI: +.090
• CLE: +.079
• LAA: +.076
• SEA: +.069
• KCR: +.057
• TBL: -.007
• TEX: -.011
• DET: -.042
• NYY: -.043
• BOS: -.063
• TOR: -.078

They've been very fortunate on the injury front in the pitching side - there has been one missed start due to injury (Purcey's first re-call); BJ Ryan came back earlier, and more effective, than was expected; a ton of the pitching staff have composite statistics well beyond what could be expected; and on, and on.

fortunate? you must be joking.

Here's the list of Jays' pitchers this year that have either missed signfiicant time to injury, and/or have pitched while recovering from injury:

• A.J.Burnett
• B.J.Ryan
• C.Janssen
• J.Accardo
• B.Wolfe
• S.Downs

And on top of that, headcase League busted again this year.

We've needed to call up 5 pitchers from the minors already - Purcey, Wells, Carlson, Camp, Benitez - and that's not including the fact that one of the regulars was already a replacement for Janssen.

The Jays may not have had an overwhelming amount of injuries to their pitching......but describing them as "fortunate" in this department is simply not true.

Off topic here but Theo Fleury is looking to play baseball for the Calgary Vipers of the Golden Baseball League.  Maybe Hakan Loob will join him!  Next thing you know, Wayne Gretzky and Dave Semenko will join the Edmonton Cracker-Cats.

The Toronto Blue Jays also had a prominent hockey player try out for them a long time ago.  I couldn't stand this guy in hockey but I still bought the baseball card anyway.  At least he didn' t try out for the Yankees!

Overall, I'm not sure anyone could argue that our pitching is overperforming.

They're doing what they were epected to be doing - a solid improvement over what was already a very good staff last year, with the addition of one of the game's best closers, and full seasons of the young starters replacing the contributions of the likes of Ohka/Zambrano/Towers. Marcum has been hot, Burnett has been cold. Litsch has been slightly hot, McGowan has been slightly cold. Carlsson and Camp have been nice surprises, Accardo and League have been big dissappointments. It's pretty balanced.

The pitching is doing what was expected, and should continue to do so.

Meanwhile, the hitting has clearly underperformed. Even if this team is a crappy .700ops team overall, they should STILL be scoring more runs and are being held back by an atrocious and abnormal performance w/RISP. We don't have one single batter hitting above expectations, meanwhile there's a number that are significantly underperforming - Rios, Hill, and Stewart at least.  The sad thing is that one of the expected improvements from the offseason is actually working out well - our bench is significantly better with the contributions of the likes of Scutaro and Barajas (and Inglett)....unfortunately, our starters aren't pulling their weights.

I really don't think anyone can say that the good and the bad have balanced out for the Jays so far this year at all.

• AJ Burnett missed one start - he's averaged 22 starts in the last 7 years.  So yes, him only missing one start at the one-quarter point is fortunate.
• BJ Ryan was coming back from an injury suffered before this season and returned ahead of schedule.  That is fortunate news for this year (disappointing for last year)
• League - "busted again" - so he did what we expected, thus not fortunate or unfortunate, but as expected
  
• Downs - please explain what you mean
• Janssen - unfortunate
• Accardo - unfortunate

• Marcum - among the league leaders in ERA / ERA+; well beyond what was expected
• Halladay - as expected
• Burnett - healthier than expected, performing worse than expected.  Overall a wash as you should have expected 2 or 3 more of his starts to go to Purcey
• McGowan - as expected
• Litsch - above expectations

• Ryan - above expectations for time frame of return and effectiveness upon return.
• Tallet - way ahead of expectations
• Carlson - way ahead of expectations
• Downs - at expectations
• Frasor - at expectations
• Camp - ahead of expectations
• Accardo - way underperformed
• Janssen - way underperformed
• League - at expectations

I believe the reference to Burnett was that his finger injury caused him to be a fairly ineffective one-pitch pitcher for the first six or seven starts of the year.  This is a fair analysis.  The loss of our best two relievers from last year was certainly unfortunate.

Downs was unavailable for a few games with arm soreness, though this was minor (so far).

Coming out of ST this season without Janssen or a healthy Burnett, certainly had the feel of misfortune at the time.  Many expected Janssen to be our fifth starter.  If we go the rest of the season with major health issues for our staff, we will be fortunate.  But to date, I don't think we've been fortunate.

We're 1.5 months into the season and we've been without 40% of our starting rotation (Burnett and Janssen) and our closer.  Or, if you are of the mind that they would have found room for Janssen in pen and Litsch in the rotation, then we have missed our #2 starter, our set- mand and closer.

For 1.5 months, I would not characterize that as forturnate.  That doesn't consider Wolfe's injury either.  He was very effective last year.

With regards to Burnett, I don't consider the Jays fortunate just because his arm hasn't fallen off.  His fingernail did and it made him a 6+ ERA pitcher for the first month of the season - not quite what you're looking for from your number two guy.

Our two best relievers from last year are felled by injury, our #2 starter has a freak injury that renders him a 1-pitch pitcher for the first month, and then there's a couple of depth injuries to boot.

Again, this is not a "fortunate" health situation in any respect.

Our two best relievers from last year are felled by injury, our #2 starter has a freak injury that renders him a 1-pitch pitcher for the first month, and then there's a couple of depth injuries to boot.

How is Burnett's start this year all that different from last year, or 2006?

Similar to how night is different from day. 

This year his April opponent's BA was .308 his splits from 2005-07 reveal a .225 opponents average.  His ERA this year in April was 6.07.  His 3-year April ERA is 3.60.

They've been very fortunate on the injury front in the pitching side

All I'm going to argue, it that, irrespective of other teams' health situation, we have not been "very fortunate" with pitcher health.  Keep in mind that we are only two months into the season.  If, come September, we have not had any further injuries, I will agree that we were fortunate to have only lost Janssen, Accardo, Wolfe and the effectiveness of Burnett for a spell.  We will have also been fortunated to have Litsch, Camp and Carlson fill in so capably.  But for two months of ball, I think we have had an "expected level" of injuries to our staff.

Similar to how night is different from day. 

This year his April opponent's BA was .308 his splits from 2005-07 reveal a .225 opponents average.  His ERA this year in April was 6.07.  His 3-year April ERA is 3.60.

Those are all weighted by his amazing 2005. 

2006 he only made 2 starts before June 22.  His ERA in those 2 starts was 6.30  and he gave up 4 HRs in 10 innings.

2007 on May 1 he had an ERA of 5.45.  He'd given up 5 HR in 33 innings and had 26 K to 21 BB.

2007 on May 1 he had an ERA of 5.45.

Link?  His April ERA was 4.18 and his BAA was .215.  His walks were up.  It's all beside the point.  AJ was essentially an injured starter for the first month of this season.  You may have expected a 6+ ERA, not many others were.  AJ's health issues would be expected to come later in the year.  They still may.

So if we lose three bullpen arms and a 1.5 starters every two months, we're fortunate.  Got it.

What does this mean?

It means I've lost my patience and once again realize it's fruitless to argue in text alone.  You made an assertion that the Jays have been "very fortunate" with the injury bug as it relates to the pitching staff.  This is a subjective statement that myself and the uglyone took issue.  You can't see my point of view, despite my cherry picking of evidence and I can't see your despite your cherry picking of evidence.  I'll move on.  This is a sort of pointless discussion.

You expected AJ Burnett to have an ERA of 6.07 or thereabouts for the first month of the season and be effectively a fifth starter.  That's fine too, but also beside the point.  What you are also saying is that had he not lost his fingernail, and had full use of his curveball from day one, he would have been no better.

I know I said I was tired of this discussion, but let me just summarize my final position and then be done with it.  My wife would kill me if she knew I was wasting my day off with such (in her mind) trivial matters.

In one third of a season, injuries have resulted in:

• the loss of one starter for the season
• our number two starter being a one-pitch pitcher for almost a month
• the loss of our closer indefinitely
• the loss of one of our 7th inning guys.

Projecting that over a full season results in:

• three starters lost for the season
• three months of one-pitch (6+ ERA) Burnett
• three indefinite injuries to the closer
• three depth bullpen arms being lost indefinitely.

That seems a bit unfortunate to me.  That doesn't include the fact that our #7 seven starter going into the year has basicly hit the end of the road due to his injury (Chacin).  Nothing anyone has said here has convinced me that we are actually fortunate. 

game 46- WPA heroes Scutaro (5), Wilkerson (2), Rolen (5)       WPA let downs Stewart (9)*, Stairs (11), Hill (13), Rios (15), Zaun (8)

game 47- WPA heroes Zaun (6), Hill (9), Tallet (5), Rios (8)      WPA let downs Rolen (4), Scutaro (5), Stairs (12), Wilkerson (4), Marcum (2)

*means -.300 score 

game 46- WPA heroes Scutaro (5), Wilkerson (2), Rolen (5)       WPA let downs Stewart (9)*, Stairs (11), Hill (13), Rios (15), Zaun (8)

game 47- WPA heroes Zaun (6), Hill (9), Tallet (5), Rios (8)      WPA let downs Rolen (4), Scutaro (5), Stairs (12), Wilkerson (4), Marcum (2)

*means -.300 score

Are the running standings placed anywhere? The season just passed the quarter point and is coming up on the 1/3 point, so it'd be interesting to see where things are.

Dare i mention that the arguable "best hitter of all time" is still available. We need a legit DH! This offence, as is does not look like we can expect some sort of offensive surge, they'd be lucky to turn it around to just below average. Save for Wells' imminent return, what player who is realistically attainable is going to be able to lift this team over the hump? One such man still exists.......double B. Too bad Ricciardi is too stubborn to make a push for him. Something does need to be done....another 8X  -3  win season is imminent.

Are the running standings placed anywhere? The season just passed the quarter point and is coming up on the 1/3 point, so it'd be interesting to see where things are.

Right here - but it's not for the faint of heart.  It's downright ugly.

Glevin: Their hitting is not very good is what you mean, right?

I've read this whole debate about whether or not the Jays pitching staff has been fortunate or not.

They've been fortunate that the major injury occured to a Jannsen, and not a Halladay. Heck, they're lucky it wasn't Marcum as I think regardless of anything else, Marcum was going to be more valuable to this team this year then Jannsen would have been. Even if Jannsen pitched a full year in the bullpen and posted the exact same numbers as last season.

However, they've been unfortunate in the sense that although AJ made every start he's supposed to, he did so with a broken nail that severley hampered his start.

And guys, isn't it kind of silly to look at his 05 - 07 numbers for the first month of the year? 05 was a great start, his first month in 06 is basically irrelevant as he was clearly ailing from something (he did go on the DL and miss most of May and at that he only made 2 starts in April). Not exactly the kind of period you can draw ANYTHING from.

But really, ask yourselves, has the pitching really been "over their heads?" - instead of trying to break it down on a case by case, inning by inning analysis, just look at the aggregate result and say "is that out of line with what I thought they could do?"

No. It's not - be real! The bullpen is again very good, but really that doesn't surprise anyone.

I didn't think Marcum would be this freaking dominating, but I also thought McGowan would be better.

The real surprise to me? Litsch. Nobody else.

I'm not surprised they found another diamond out of nowhere (Carlson). I'm not surprised by Tallet's success - Gibbons is good at riding a hot hand. He let's go when it cools down.

No, the problem with this team is the offence. We all know it, but in fairness, it's definitely more fun to debate about the good things.

This team will be helped when Eckstein returns (and even more so when Wells is back), but barring a Bonds esque signing, we have to pray the staff doesn't suffer an injury to one of their big horses and the offence stops putting so much pressure on itself and starts just performing like normal baseball players do with runners on base in scoring position.

If the offence can just be "below average" instead of "pull all your hair out bad", with this pitching staff, it's not a bad team. 85/86 wins calibre team - which is a team close, but missing a key ingredient or two.

When it comes to fortunate it pays to check other teams.  An easy way is to check number of pitchers used and number of starters used.  I'll do the AL East as that is the division we really care about.

Boston: 18 pitchers, 8 starters, 4 starts by non-top 5, 13 with 10+ IP
NYY: 18 pitchers, 8 starters, 5 starts by non-top 5, 14 with 10+ IP
Baltimore: 16 pitchers, 7 starters, 6 starts by non-top 5, 13 with 10+ IP
Tampa Bay: 16 pitchers, 7 starters, 6 starts by non-top 5, 13 with 10+ IP, Kasmir is their #6 in starts
And...
Toronto: 17 pitchers, 6 starters, 2 starts by non-top 5, 12 with 10+ IP

What does this say?  What is the point?  It says how well each team has been able to count on the 12 guys they started the season with and the 5 starters they picked to start.  The Jays are dead center in number of pitchers and have had 1/2 the starts of anyone else by their #6 guy.  The Jays also have had to lean on their #13 and up pitchers less (or at least counted on one of them less) than anyone else.

The Jays have had 20 1/3 IP by their #13 and up pitchers (Purcey, Wolfe, League, Benitez, and Wells).  The Yankees have had 43 2/3 IP by their #13 and up's.  That is a big plus for the Jays.

There's one serious flaw in this analysis, John - and that's that it completely ignores the "fortunateness" or lack thereof of losing a pitcher like Casey Janssen in the pre-season.

To be fair, he has to be included - and this knocks every bullpen pitcher (aside from Ryan) down a notch in the rankings.

This would knock at least Camp down into that "#13 and up" category you listed, which would bring the Jays' total innings by 13 and up guys to 32 1/3 innings, which cuts that apparent advantage over the Yanks significantly.

What's more, is that while you definied your criteria as pitchers who "started the season with the team", for some reason you count Wolfe and League as replacement players, and Carlson and Camp as guys who have started with the team....even though at least Wolfe was being relied on quite heavily before he as injured. This is a bit misleading, as now Wolfe isn't looked at as a starter who has been injured, but rather as an injury replacement, which skews the picture somewhat...even though he was being used more (and pitched arguably better) than, say, Frasor.

If I were to do that analysis, in terms of injuries, then I'd take the actual guys who started with the team, and stayed with the team. (i.e. League doesn't count as a starter because he was demoted due to performance, not injury).

1. Halladay
2. Burnett
3. McGowan
4. Marcum
5. Litsch
6. Ryan
7. Janssen
8. Downs
9. Accardo
10. Tallet
11. Frasor
12. Wolfe

That was our starting staff.

This means our "13 and up" guys (Carlson, Camp, Purcey, Benitez, League, Wells) have given us 45.1ip. Sure, Carlson has turned into a keeper - but we can't apologize for having good depth. It's not "fortunate" to have good depth, that's just a strength of the team.