Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Well that was pretty neat and tidy. The Jays now sit at 30-26, their best record of the season, and are three back of Tampa for the division lead, two back of Boston for the wild card. Jesse Litsch was masterful and now hasn't allowed a run in 16 innings. Rod Barajas hit three doubles, Shannon Stewart was 3 for 5 with a homer and six Jays had multi-hit games as the good guys rapped out 17 hits and 13 runs, both season bests.


The Jays hot streak has come mainly with Vernon Wells out of the lineup. Vernon went on the DL May 10th, and since a rainout on the 11th the Jays are a scorching 13-5. During this stretch they've scored 78 runs while allowing 49, or 4.33/2.72 runs for and against per game. That first number is nothing to write home about, even with yesterday's 12 run outburst (which if you throw out put the Jays slightly below their season average of 3.8 runs per game during a 17 game stretch). No, its the second number that is fantastic - over a full season at that pace the Jays would allow 441 runs, which at a guess would be one of the top ten numbers in the live ball era (if not better). Lets look ever so superficially back at those 18 starts.



Of course various caveats apply here - this sample size is small, and somewhat arbitrary in length and start. Plus the Jays face the Royals, the worst offensive team in the AL, and Cleveland, Oakland and Anaheim have all been middle of the pack (Philly's been fantastic).

With that being said, if you throw out David Purcey's spot start, the Jays have allowed 39 runs in 17 games, or about 2.3 runs a game. Thats out of this world. The Jays have allowed 3 or fewer runs in 14 of their last 18 games overall, a remarkable feat. The Jays are allowing 3.55 runs per game on the season, second best in the American League (only the A's have been better).

What is just as amazing is the innings the Jays are getting from their starting pitching. In the 18 game stretch, only three times did a Jays pitcher fail to go five and two-thirds innings - Purcey went three against the Phillies, Marcum went one because of rain, also against Philadelphia, and McGowan went five against the Twins. Jesse Litsch has pitched at least seven innings in four of his last five starts, Marcum has only pitched fewer than six innings twice all season (the one inning game and a game against Detroit where he got pulled with two out in the sixth) - he's gone at least 6.2 innings in nine of his eleven starts. Despite his control problems Dustin McGowan gone 6.1 innings or more in four of his last six starts, and A.J. Burnett has worked at least six innings in six of his last seven starts, with the lone exception coming Monday against the A's, when he went 5.2. Roy Halladay leads the Majors in innings pitched, of course, and has not pitched fewer than six innings in a start all year - he's pitched eight or more innings in seven of eleven starts.

In any event, I guess this is a long way of saying that the Jays probably don't need seven relievers, and that their pitching is really, really, good.



TDIB 30 May 2008: How 'bout That Pitching? | 105 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Magpie - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 05:37 AM EDT (#186160) #
over a full season at that pace the Jays would allow 441 runs, which at a guess would be one of the top ten numbers in the live ball era (if not better).

Four teams in major league history have allowed fewer than 2.72 runs per game - the Chicago Cubs of 1906, 1907, and 1909; and the 1909 Philadelphia A's. In fact, of the twenty teams that have allowed fewer than 3 runs per game, all but two are from the days before Babe Ruth became a full time outfielder. The other two were AL teams from 1972 (so that's why they were so hot for the DH!)

The list:

1906 CHI (NL) 2.51
1909 CHI (NL) 2.55
1907 CHI (NL) 2.57
1909 PHI (AL) 2.69
1972 BAL (AL) 2.79
1919 CIN (NL) 2.86
1905 CHI (NL) 2.89
1908 PHI (NL) 2.89
1919 CHI (NL) 2.91
1968 STL (NL) 2.91
1910 PHI (AL) 2.95
1909 PIT (NL) 2.95
1972 OAK (AL) 2.95
1908 NY (NL) 2.95
1905 CHI (AL) 2.97
1917 NY (NL) 2.97
1916 BOS (NL) 2.98
1908 CLE (AL) 2.98
1917 BOS (AL) 2.99
1908 CHI (NL) 2.99

So, yeah. A whole season of that would be Historic.
King Ryan - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 05:37 AM EDT (#186161) #
It's gotten to the point where if I tune into the game during the seventh inning I fully expect to see the starter still there (whomever he is,) and to see a 0 or a 1 on the scoreboard (often I see both, but I digress...)

Halladay in May: 39.3 IP, 40 K, 4 BB.  Yowza.    And three of those walks came in the same game.

Magpie - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 05:39 AM EDT (#186162) #
all but two are from the days before Babe Ruth

Oh, yeah. The Bob Gibson Cardinals from the Year of the Pitcher make the cut as well.
Magpie - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 05:56 AM EDT (#186163) #
Just for fun (hey, I got out the Great Big Spreadsheet, didn't I? Might as well mess around a bit!) As always, I don't bother with the defunct franchises:

20 teams (listed above) have given up between 2.51 and 2.99 runs per game
571 teams have given up between 3.00 and 3.99 runs per game
1203 teams have given up between 4.00 and 4.99 runs per game
460 teams have given up between 5.00 and 5.99 runs per game
67 teams have given up between 6.00 and 6.99 runs per game
13 teams have given up between 7.00 and 7.99 runs per game
5 teams have given up between 8.00 and 8.99 runs per game
2 teams have given up between 9.00 and 9.99 runs per game
1 team has given up more than 10 runs per game.

That last would be Harry Wright's 1871 Boston Red Stockings, who allowed 303 runs in 30 games. Luckily, they scored 401 and went 19-11.

The worst 20th century team, by a comfortable margin, are the 1930 Phillies who allowed 1199 runs in 154 games - 7.79 every day.  Only one team ever has allowed more runs - the 1890 Pittsburgh Alleghenys allowed 1235 runs en route to a remarkable 23-113 record.

Two other teams have also managed to surrender more than 1100 runs: the 1894 Cincinnati Reds and the 1996 Detroit Tigers both surrendered 1103 runs.
Geoff - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 08:19 AM EDT (#186165) #
Of note about the Rays: they have played nearly twice as many games against the AL East as the Jays, 33:17, and are the only team in this hard-fought division with a winning record at 21-12. Against lesser opponents, the Rays are 11-10.

Looks like Tampa Bay has the AL East all figured out.

Wildrose - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 09:27 AM EDT (#186166) #
In any event, I guess this is a long way of saying that the Jays probably don't need seven relievers, and that their pitching is really, really, good.

And all this has been accomplished in a moderate hitters park ( sample size alert) making this even a better achievement.
Mike Green - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 09:46 AM EDT (#186168) #
BBRef has the RC as a moderate pitcher's park this year.  Hunh? I'd better check. The Blue Jays and their opponents have scored 201 runs in 26 games at the RC or 7.73 runs/game.  The Blue Jays and their opponents have scored 221 runs in 30 games away from the RC or 7.37 runs/game.  There are many adjustments that you can do to these figures.
Anders - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 11:22 AM EDT (#186173) #
Four teams in major league history have allowed fewer than 2.72 runs per game.

Yup, I hedged my bets because I needed to go to bed, and Magpie as always rides in with the answer - thanks for that.

Plus the Jays face the Angels, Orioles and Mariners next, and none of these teams are exactly offensive juggernauts, so it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

When I actually have some time next week I'm going to review the Jays starters vs. relievers usage. So, uh, stay tuned.
Mike Green - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 11:48 AM EDT (#186175) #
The '72 Orioles were an interesting club.  Their best offensive player was the 23 year old Bobby Grich, who was blocked by Davey Johnson.  He played a fair bit at short that year.  The pitching was good, but looked fabulous thanks to superior defence (at a cost to the offence).  League scoring was at a paltry 3.47 runs per game.
danjulien - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#186178) #

As good as the pitching is, this is now a team that has Rod Barajas leading it in OPS and second in VORP for offensive players.  There are seven pitchers ahead of the best offensive player according to VORP (Scott Rolen), and Burnett is not one of them...

The pitching HAS to regress, it just has to, there's no way Jesse Litsch (BP has him projected at 5-2) is this good.  I used to think well that's fine, the defense is obviously helping these guys out but our corner OFers lately have been a mix of guys who aren't exactly stellar defensively (Stew, Mench, Stairs) or even playing ouf ot position (Scutaro, Inglett), we're lacking our gold glove CF (although Rios has 3 assists since moving to CF) and our defensive whiz at SS hasn't played.

I think my biggest thing is that although some pitchers should regress (Litsch, Carlson, Marcum) but we haven't seen the best of some others (McGowan, Burnett). 

John Northey - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#186181) #
A little what if...  What if JP got all 3 other pitchers that he wanted to get over the last two winters.  Net cost = Rios and a few draft picks.
IP - ERA - ERA+ to keep things simple.

Ted Lilly: 62 - 5.23 - 85
Gil Meche: 65.7 - 5.35 - 80
Tim Lincecum: 69.7 - 2.33 - 181 or Matt Cain: 67 - 4.43 - 95

Wow.  Only Lincecum would've been an improvement.  Cain maybe if we dumped AJ or if he was helped enough by our defense to move ahead of McGowan.  Lilly and Meche would both look like anchors on the staff, but not in a good way.

If any of those guys came here we'd not be enjoying Jesse Litsch right now.  If two were here then Marcum might be in AAA too given how the Jays brain trust appeared to be going.  I guess you can have too much pitching, as having any but Lincecum would, right now, be a net negative to the team.  Of course, who knows, with the Jays defense and coaching staff maybe Lilly or Meche or Cain would be at 120+ in ERA+ right now, but I somehow doubt it.
uglyone - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 12:47 PM EDT (#186184) #

we wouldn't have been enjoying Litsch now, even if only Janssen hadn't ripped up his shoulder.

I always wondered why Janssen was favored - you compare Janssen's one half-year as a starter to Litsch's one half-year as a starter coming into this season, and the 22 year Litsch's year was way better than the 25 year old Janssen's year, in every respect.

and yet Janssen was still favored for the #5 spot. I never understood it.

 

Mick Doherty - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#186185) #

John, great post, but ...

 I guess you can have too much pitching

... that's just flat wrong, I think. I literally can't imagine a situation where that's the case. If you have "too much" to the point where guys are vocally unhappy at their usage pattern, then you package and deal for a bat or, at worst, additional young depth.

This team is just a couple of line drives up the middle away from being "thin" in the pitching staff. So is every team, tho.

John Northey - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#186186) #
When it comes to anything too much is possible.  Right now some guys in the lower levels are blocked from climbing due to the Jays having an abundance of pitching talent throughout the system.  If they are forced to stay at a low level too long they could easily start regressing, getting into bad habits, and just simply not developing to the level we want to see.

Back in the '88 Baseball Abstract I recall Bill James pointing out that the A's of that time had too many pitchers around thus no one got a shot to work through problems, leading to chaos.  They used 22 different pitchers that season including a big part of the 1985 Jays bullpen - Bill Caudill, Gary Lavelle, and Dennis Lamp.  13 different guys started a game, with just 2 going over 30 starts (Dave Stewart had 37) and 1 more with 15+.  I suspect that is part of what led them to dump Jose Rijo to Cincinnati a year too soon (150 ERA+ the next year his first of 7 straight over 120).  21 different pitchers were used in '86 by them as well.  This was in an era of 10 man pitching staffs.  In '88 when they finally figured everything out they dropped to just 15 pitchers and jumped to a 111 ERA+ from an 89 and 95 the previous two seasons.  16 pitchers in '89 and a 118 ERA+, 15 getting to 117 in '90, then they had issues in '91 using all their young pitchers and used 22 real pitchers (plus 1 infielder) to get a 83 ERA+.

Having depth is both good and vital, but too many 'must play' guys (as Meche and Lilly would've been) makes it hard to get kids into the staff who might help more long term.  Too many young guys though can lead to minor league issues that manifest in the majors years later.  I'd say that the Jays need to look seriously at making trades using the pitching depth to address the hitting weaknesses by mid-season.  

Sigh.  Everytime I think about what the Jays need I keep saying 'left fielder for a year' and one name comes up that would cost nothing but cash and who would be here for just one year as per the Jays needs, maybe two years if he wanted to stick around.  Instead we have Wilkerson (50 OPS+), Mench (63) and Stewart (climbed to 93 now).  It isn't the open wound it was earlier as Stewart is improving quickly but it is the only real obvious weakness that can be addressed (Hill, Rios aren't going anywhere with their 90's OPS+, Eck/Scutaro/McDonald seem to be getting by at short, Stairs is solid at DH and can be mixed/matched with Stewart and a LFer, and Zaun/Barajas have done well as catchers while Overbay has recovered to a 113 OPS+ now with a 381 OBP).

jerjapan - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 01:38 PM EDT (#186187) #
 "that's just flat wrong, I think. I literally can't imagine a situation where that's the case. If you have "too much" to the point where guys are vocally unhappy at their usage pattern, then you package and deal for a bat or, at worst, additional young depth.

This team is just a couple of line drives up the middle away from being "thin" in the pitching staff. So is every team, tho."

Four top quality lefty relievers who, with the exception of Carlson, now have enough effective innings to quell concerns about injury or extreme overperformance.  Frasor plus two quality injured righties (assuming Accardo can right the ship) gives us the unnecessary seven man deep pen that teams seem to feel they need to carry these days.  Plus camp, League, Benitez and several low-ceiling, reasonble performance types in AAA that could easily be 6--7th men out of the pen.

this bullpen is so deep it can, and has, survive several injuries.  We need to use this asset and trade a lefty reliever - whoever could get the best return would be my pick, even Ryan if his recovery is seen as complete by other teams.  Downs or Tallet could get a solid return at this point - add Lind / a prospect and you could score a quality young OF.

 

 

Magpie - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#186188) #
I have this vague memory of Bill James in one of the Abstracts describing a team's problems one seasons as proof that you can have too much pitching. I lost all my Abstracts some years ago, so I don't have the reference and I'm not going to find it. Memory tells me it was an Oakland team. I think the gist of the problem was that they had too many pitching options. If a guy had two back to back starts, there was always a guy like Joaquin Anduhar ready to come off the DL or some such thing. (Well, that suggests it was the 1987 A's and the 1988 Abstract.)
Magpie - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 01:44 PM EDT (#186189) #
And while I'm typing something vague and fuzzy, John is posting something precise and concrete.
Magpie - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 01:50 PM EDT (#186190) #
We need to use this asset and trade a lefty reliever - whoever could get the best return would be my pick, even Ryan if his recovery is seen as complete by other teams.

The idea makes a great deal of sense - this team does appear to have quality relievers oozing from every pore. Never mind the seven guys in the pen, there's Brian Wolfe with two scoreless rehab outings, Accardo will be back in due course, Brandon League has pitched effectively in the majors and there's reason to think he'll do so again some day. But I just don't know how good a bat you can get for a relief pitcher.

There is no shortage of useful pitchers. People don't understand this as well as they need to, and it's one of the fundamental things that needs to be understood about modern baseball.

Of course, I guess all you need is one general manager who doesn't understand that.
Magpie - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 01:53 PM EDT (#186191) #
And by the way John, how cool is it that the man who brought order to the Oakland pitching staff in 1988, and cut back on the number of arms being run out there willy-nilly was... Tony LaRussa?
Mike Green - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 02:23 PM EDT (#186192) #
Dale Murray for Dave Collins and Fred McGriff

Just planting a little seed there. 
jgadfly - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#186195) #
John's Sigh ... I'm with you. Why the Jays don't flee  the smokey stall of collusion and make a bid for Mr Bonds' services I don't know ... finishing a few games back with a $95M budget and possibly losing money OR possibly taking it all with a $105M budget and possibly making money ... What would George do ?  What if the Yankee$ or the Red $ox do?  Kiss her goodbye for "the want of  a nail"?  The Jays have the bases full ... hopefully Jays' management and ownership can step up to the plate and get a hit with runners in scoring position... unlike the tentative approach that their players have mirrored and lost by... remember how much spring and strut was put in the step with Henderson and Cone ... Mgt came through for the players and the fans then but they knew how to win ... You can pay Bonds now or you can send him a postdated cheque for when he wins his case for collusion ... at least make him an offer and save yourself and baseball the ignominy of sending money C/O  the US Penitentiary System.
jgadfly - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 03:51 PM EDT (#186196) #
to heck with Lind  ... FREE BARRY !!!
Magpie - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 04:19 PM EDT (#186197) #
I don't think Bonds' head will be in the game.

And if he does sign with someone, and his head is in the game, then his head needs to be examined. Fifteen felony indictments aren't parking tickets. The only thing on his mind should be avoiding prison.

Mick Doherty - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 04:56 PM EDT (#186198) #

I don't think Bonds' head will be in the game.

Yah. It wouldn't fit. Have you seen the size of that thing?

CSHunt68 - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 05:23 PM EDT (#186199) #
I don't buy the collusion argument Brattain has been a big proponent of. Rather, I agree with Bill James, who argues that signing Bonds would be a HUGE risk, given his age and the fact that his OPS is his only asset (rather than, say, speed or defense). Players like that, so his argument goes, tend to drop off _extremely_ rapidly, and have been the cause of MANY collapses. I don't remotely see that it's a no-brainer. Rather, it's a huge gamble. Are the Jays in the position of _needing_ to take a huge risk? ... I don't know, but I don't think so, given the awesome pitching ...
uglyone - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 05:29 PM EDT (#186200) #

MLB Team Pitching Stats:

Toronto Blue Jays

IP: 506.1 (1st)
CG: 6 (1st)
SO: 6 (2nd)
QS: 32 (3rd)
SV: 22 (1st)
SV%: 88 (1st)
ERA: 3.32 (1st)
OOPS: .665 (2nd)
OAVG: .234 (1st)
OOBP: .301 (1st)
OSLG: .364 (3rd)
WHIP: 1.20 (1st)
K/9: 7.4 (4th, 1st AL)
K/BB: 2.5 (2nd, 1st AL)

I just like looking at that.

Barry Bonnell - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#186201) #

The Yanks announced that Joba's first start will be Tueday against the Jays.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/05/30/joba.start.ap/index.html

Thomas - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 06:42 PM EDT (#186205) #
The Yanks announced that Joba's first start will be Tueday against the Jays.

I suppose the good news there is that even if he's pitching well he's only going to go five innings.
scottt - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 06:52 PM EDT (#186206) #
I'd be surprised if he can go more than 4 innings and that doesn't really leave much in their bullpen.

The Jays don't have as many QS because Litsch was pulled after 5 innings in most of his April games and Burnett sometimes runs out of fuel in the middle of the sixth.

I bet the Jays are first for starters  pulled before the 7th with 3 or less run allowed.

scottt - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 07:06 PM EDT (#186207) #
Not going to be easy to put up the lineups in this series.

Scutaro has had success against every Angels starter, but where do you play him? Eckstein needs at least 2 starts against his former team, but Garland owns him.

Should be interesting.



Wildrose - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 07:06 PM EDT (#186208) #
Bill James is not the only sabermetrician in town.

I'd sign Bonds, but Rogers looks at the team more in terms of positive branding than that of the fan who wants to win.

 

Lefty - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 07:48 PM EDT (#186209) #

Well I'm a "fan who wants to win", but not at any cost.

I don't want the team I support to be noted as the team that picked up a playoff spot or wildcard on the basis of signing someone as unsavoury as Barry Bonds.

Thats like profiting of proceeds of crime or something. But with the attitude.

I'll pass thanks.

 

VBF - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 09:07 PM EDT (#186210) #
This would be a good poll question. I'm of the completely opposite attitude. 15 years of baseball and one of those years meaningful baseball was played in August. We've grown used to playing meaningless games. I love the sport and I love going to games, but it gets mundane by July.

Sign Barry Bonds, make the playoffs, maybe even make a splash there, and send the brand equity of the team skyrocketing which would last for a few years at least. You could include a 10 million dollar buyout in the contract and end it whenever you like.

This is possibly the best rotation in baseball right now and still, the odds are against the team to make the playoffs. Signing Bonds is the least expensive choice and has the biggest impact.
electric carrot - Friday, May 30 2008 @ 09:59 PM EDT (#186212) #
Put me down as against bringing in Barry.  There are a number of good reasons not to bring him in.  #1 Where does he play?  We have a left handed DH who was out best hitter last year and is doing OK now and even better he's been playing baseball for three months.  Outfield -- uh uhn.  No way.  Just no.  I don't like Stairs in the outfield either.  1st base.  Doesn't work either.  We have a great defender there who is proven hitter and is doing just fine.  If it was Barry of two or three years ago this makes a lot of sense.  As it is I really don't think it does notwithstanding the legal, character and clubhouse issues -- which I do think are important issues also.  Time to let it go and have a little faith.  All of our outfielders are good baseball players with good records of achievement to prove it.  Many are below where they should be -- but that's where the faith part needs to come in.  They've done it before, they can do it again -- worked with Overbay, McGowan, Litsch & Ryan.   Starting to work with Stewart. 





The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 05:38 AM EDT (#186220) #

Well I'm a "fan who wants to win", but not at any cost.

I don't want the team I support to be noted as the team that picked up a playoff spot or wildcard on the basis of signing someone as unsavoury as Barry Bonds.

Thats like profiting of proceeds of crime or something. But with the attitude.

I'll pass thanks.

Haha. Yeah, because it's much better being the mediocre team in Canada that nobody has acknowledged or even cared about in years.

Sorry, it's been too long. I'd rather not waste the fantastic opportunity they have right now due to the fear of poor fan or media perception. Bonds can clearly push us over the top, and I really can't believe that anybody that calls themselves a Jays fan would be agaisnt that.

I also find it funny that Bill James is so adament that Barry Bonds is worth nothing and is very likely to decline despite the fact that his handbook projects Bonds as the player with the top OPS in baseball.  Nice Bill. Tango seems to be putting him in his place, though.

 

The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 05:49 AM EDT (#186221) #

Put me down as against bringing in Barry.  There are a number of good reasons not to bring him in.  #1 Where does he play?  We have a left handed DH who was out best hitter last year and is doing OK now and even better he's been playing baseball for three months.  Outfield -- uh uhn.  No way.  Just no.  I don't like Stairs in the outfield either.  1st base.  Doesn't work either.  We have a great defender there who is proven hitter and is doing just fine.  If it was Barry of two or three years ago this makes a lot of sense.  As it is I really don't think it does notwithstanding the legal, character and clubhouse issues -- which I do think are important issues also.  Time to let it go and have a little faith.  All of our outfielders are good baseball players with good records of achievement to prove it.  Many are below where they should be -- but that's where the faith part needs to come in.  They've done it before, they can do it again -- worked with Overbay, McGowan, Litsch & Ryan.   Starting to work with Stewart. 

My ideal lineup would be bringing in Bonds to be the full time DH. He had a 170 OPS+ last year. That is ridiculous, and obviously a huge upgrade at the position. Then, once Wells comes back, you actually bring up Adam Lind and allow him to play LF for longer than 5 days. He will no doubt be a better player both offensively and defensively than Shannon Stewart (whose OPS in this "good" month of his is still only .755). You get rid of Stewart (Wilkerson is already gone upon Wells' return), and you let Matt Stairs be the backup OF/DH for both Lind and Bonds. In my opinion, Stairs simply isn't good enough for a full time job, and allowing him to be a bench player/pinch hitter would help both the team and his numbers.

Enough of this mediocrity. Go out and get the available good players.

 


Dave Till - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 08:23 AM EDT (#186222) #
I'm opposed to signing Bonds.

On paper, he would be a great acquisition: the Jays aren't getting a lot of offensive production from LF/DH, and Bonds' numbers were still very good last year. But, in the real world, it would be a disaster. Bonds would demand an enormous salary, insist on playing left field and batting fourth every day, request all kinds of strange and exotic perks, and likely treat everyone around him very badly. Any gain from Bonds would be offset by reduced performance from his teammates. It's not worth it.

Besides, the Jays might not need Bonds: they seem to have suddenly started hitting. They scored 10 runs last night, and 12 the night before. Against west coast teams on the road, even. What's up with that? (I still think it's because I haven't been able to watch any of the games. They play better when not subjected to my scrutiny.)

Frank Markotich - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#186223) #
i think we should take up a collection and pay Dave not to watch any more games this season.
92-93 - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 10:22 AM EDT (#186224) #
"Bonds would demand an enormous salary, insist on playing left field and batting fourth every day, request all kinds of strange and exotic perks, and likely treat everyone around him very badly."

He hasn't received an offer of even the minimum, and by the time he was ready to play the season would be half over. So even a $10m contract (which would be as outrageous as being the only bidder for Thomas) would only cost $5m, something the Jays should be able to afford. And that ignores the huge spike in attendance Barry would bring ; you would see a lot more of the visiting teams' fans in the Dome as East Coast people would be sure to take the summer trek to see Barry in Baby Blue.

I highly doubt he would insist on playing every day in LF, but it really doesn't matter. If that's what it takes to get that monster bat going, I'm fine with that. I can't imagine Stewart is that much better of a LF, and the Sox have won 2 of the last 4 Series with Manny patrolling left. This team has SO much defense across the field (which shows in the ridiculousness that is the pitching) that it can spare one below par defensive position to get that bopping, LEFT-HANDED bat in the lineup.

If he wants to bat #4, good! Get him in there every day and watch him rack up RBI.

I'll pay for his barcolounger. The rest of the guys should be happy that JP went out and got one of the greatest hitters of all time to help them achieve their ultimate goal.

I don't know why you assume he treats everybody badly, and I hope it's not because of how the media portrays him. I can tell just by reading some of Toronto's writers that these guys need not be trusted. There's a reason top managers like Leyland and La Russa came out to the media and said they wouldn't mind Barry on their team. They know they can manage him, and also know what he can do in the middle of their lineup.

John Gibbons can handle Barry Bonds, just like he's handled Rolen so far with apparently no problem. The guy is doing a FANTASTIC job of managing the team this year, and I can see him headed for a MoY if the Jays can stay competitive and make the playoffs.
Magpie - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 11:31 AM EDT (#186230) #
Well, like I said - I can see why baseball fans are thinking about Bonds (and the spectacle of having him hauled off to court in the midst of the pennant race would be novel as well). But if Bonds is thinking about baseball, he's absolutely nuts.

And at this stage of their careers, Manny really is a significantly better defensive player (never mind Stewart), although I agree that a LF's defense is mostly a non-issue. All these guys are left fielders for a reason.

By the way, should he actually sign with an AL team, I'm sure he'll hit but I can confidently guarantee he won't put up an OPS+ of 170. Mainly because he'll draw only half as many walks in the new league. They haven't spent the past fifteen years being terrorized by him. He'll be pitched to much more aggressively.


scottt - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 12:00 PM EDT (#186232) #
4 and 2 on a West Coast trip is great. Nice to see McGowan get some run support.

The record when Barajas is starting keeps getting better.

Marcum should consider walking Guerrero tonight, although he's probably a bit less dangerous at home.

The Angel crowd really like Eckstein.

jerjapan - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#186233) #
I've written this before, and it remains a controversial statement, but it's worth considering - why all the hostility to Bonds when countless players have been incriminated in the steroid scandal, including some on our current roster who are considered gamers and gritty leaders? 

David Zirin writes on this below, arguing that part of the hostile reaction of the press and the general public (which tends to focus the anti-steroid venom on Bonds as opposed to everyone else from the top leaders of MLB down to the players, trainers etc implicated in the scandal) stems from racism.  Worth a read, even if you don't buy the argument.

 http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?Itemid=33&id=272&option=com_content&task=view

for anyone who doesn't know him, David Zirin's the only writer out there that I know of discussing the intersection of sports and politics in a meaningful way - great stuff.
Magpie - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 12:24 PM EDT (#186234) #
countless players have been incriminated in the steroid scandal

Last time I looked, only one player had been indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury. He's looking at up to five years in prison for the perjury and up to ten years for the obstruction of justice.

He needs to focus on that.
jerjapan - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 12:36 PM EDT (#186235) #
Right, but I think that supports my point, although I'm no expert on the legal implications here - but why is Bonds the only one having the book thrown at him?  Other guys have lied on the stand about this.

Rob - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#186236) #
The worst 20th century team, by a comfortable margin, are the 1930 Phillies who allowed 1199 runs in 154 games - 7.79 every day.

Wow, every single day? At least they were consistent...
Magpie - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 12:46 PM EDT (#186237) #
Here's a proper link to Zirin's article.

The role of racism in all of this is complicated, as you might expect. The reputations of Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire may be mud now, but not a whole lot of people had all that much to say about them while they were active.

I think it surely is more difficult for a black athlete to get away with being a selfish, arrogrant self-absorbed prick than a white athlete. The media is much less likely to cover it up for him. That description fits Bonds perfectly, and he was always that way. He's had a chip on his shoulder the size of a large boulder since he was playing at Arizona, and much of it has to do with race and how his father was treated by the game. I don't much like him myself, but I can sure see where he's coming from.

But that basic description also fits Ted Williams quite nicely, and there are some who would add Joe DiMaggio as well. Not to mention Clemens. To the best of my knowledge, nothing Bonds has done has compromised the game as seriously as what Joe Jackson did. Nothing he's done is as despicable as some of things Ty Cobb did.

Magpie - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 12:51 PM EDT (#186239) #
Other guys have lied on the stand about this.

In court? Who? Giambi also testified in the BALCO case, but he turned all Eddie Cicotte on them. And Clemens is now under investigaton for his congressional testimony - stay tuned on that one. McGwire took the fifth (without actually taking the fifth) and Sosa did a variation on the "I can't recall" by forgetting he had a perfectly functional grasp of the English language.

Well, Rafael Palmeiro walks the streets, a free man. Who else?
Lefty - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#186240) #
Sounds like bleating to me.
Mike Green - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 01:25 PM EDT (#186241) #
Nice summary, Magpie.

You would think that facing charges would affect any player's performance, let alone one who will be turning 44 in two months.   This would be extraordinary stress for an athlete.

Mike Green - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#186242) #
BP has the three top teams in baseball as of right now all being in the AL East, according to their adjusted standings report. The home nine is at #2 with a bullet.
jerjapan - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#186246) #
"I think it surely is more difficult for a black athlete to get away with being a selfish, arrogrant self-absorbed prick than a white athlete. The media is much less likely to cover it up for him. That description fits Bonds perfectly, and he was always that way. He's had a chip on his shoulder the size of a large boulder since he was playing at Arizona, and much of it has to do with race and how his father was treated by the game. I don't much like him myself, but I can sure see where he's coming from."

Well said, and I think that's why Sosa, McGuire, Palmeiro and Clemens, players of comparable stature and achievement( and therefore the logical targets for an investigation like this), are let off the hook.  Again, I'm no legal expert, but how are their actions any less problematic, despite their obfuscations (and granting that Clemen's fate remains to be seen)?

My original point here is that essentially the decision to sign Bonds or not (which there appears to be zero chance of us doing) should be strictly a baseball one.  Team / player 'character' is a word that gets used way too often in baseball.  Eckstein isn't doing much with his character at the bottom of the order or on the field.  Thomas was cut due to his unhappiness (and the consequences on morale that implies to some folks) but  what would you rather have, a happy Thomas on the Oakland bench (who we may have to beat for the wildcard, and who were always favoured to pick him up) or an unhappy Thomas contributing to the Jays  as a platoon DH?  And Reed Johnson, the epitome of a 'character' player, was cut in favour of Stewart (never a noted 'character' guy).  In this case, character seems to mean the million plus the Jays saved by making the move.

Essentially, 'character' seems like a go-to excuse (and a poor one in my books) for Riccardi to justify his decision making. 
jerjapan - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:27 PM EDT (#186247) #
"Sounds like bleating to me"

Lefty, bleating by who?  Bonds isn't arguing this, David Zirin  is.  I haven't heard anything from the Bonds camp arguing about collusion or racism or angling to get back in the game -the guy is doing what he always does - whatever he wants to.   Sounds like the right approach to me in this case. 
VBF - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:54 PM EDT (#186249) #
and likely treat everyone around him very badly.

This is probably true. For what it's worth, Jeremy Accardo, the only Blue Jay to have played with Bonds had this to say on him:

“He was great. He was good to me. I’ve got not a bad thing to say about him...He’d look good in the middle of our lineup.”

If JP was to consider bringing Bonds to Toronto, I would have to hope that he got some feedback from the Jays on it, since the clubhouse would definitely be affected. As to him wanting crazy requirements, I don't see that holding anything back.
uglyone - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 03:04 PM EDT (#186251) #

The Angel crowd really like Eckstein.

Which begs the question - why does the Toronto fanbase, in general, dislike this guy so much already?

what does that say about us?

Lefty - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 03:17 PM EDT (#186254) #

I think its easy to confuse the Jays fanbase with percived popular opinion or notions on this board.

I haven't heard a chorus of boo's when Eckstien steps between the lines at SkyDome.

Considering the teams options and needs at the time of the signing it wasn't horrible. As well Eckstein hasn't looked bad since he came back.  

He made a wonderful snag and throw from deep in the hole last night.

I'm willing to let this play out for now. Not theres a lot of choice in the matter though.

 

Lefty - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#186256) #

The continuing bleating of those who insist going on and on about something that is not happening. I'm sure there are a few hundred fans of all 30 MLB teams that wish to go over the Bonds matter again and again, like sheep bleating in the field.

We can hear the noise, but nobody is listening.

Wildrose - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 03:25 PM EDT (#186257) #
Bonds certainly is a polarizing figure. I for one minute do not think that Rogers will sign him primarily because of potential negative feedback. In terms of making your team better, and as a pure baseball decision I ( Remember I'm speaking as Joe Fan and don't have to answer to a board of directors) would have signed him ( and Adam Everett to boot) in the off-season. I'm not sure how he'd  do now without the benefit  of spring training coming in cold ( and God knows  this management group is not very patient as Adam Lind or Frank Thomas would tell you) so I'm not sure you could do it now.

The spectacle of having him led off to court in the middle of a pennant race is purely misleading;

At a brief court hearing Friday, assistant U.S. attorney Matt Parrella didn’t say when the government will ask a grand jury for a new indictment. Illston ordered the sides to return to court June 6, making it likely any trail would not start before 2009.

In terms of his legal indictment being constantly on his mind, it could also be argued with as much validation , that he should be actually doing something to get his mind off this matter, and let his lawyers develop their case.

Can he still play? I think Tango ( whose a better analyst than everybody at the Box combined) has covered that quite adequately.



 
jgadfly - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 03:54 PM EDT (#186265) #
Hey Lefty ... obviously a reference to the way you swing a bat or throw a baseball... the bleating you hear is all us sheep saying ... "Baa ...Baa... Baarry !!!" 
King Ryan - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 04:01 PM EDT (#186267) #
I agree with Lefty.

For the love of luck, Barry Bonds is not signing here.  He never was and he never will.  The odds of the Jays signing Bonds are exactly equal to the odds of the Jays signing me.  It's not happening.  To even discuss its possibility is a waste of time and a waste of bytes.

Let it go already, please.  PLEASE just let it go.

Wildrose - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 04:19 PM EDT (#186269) #
Let it go already, please.  PLEASE just let it go.

Why? Is this not an open forum? If you don't like a topic don't bother to respond or to read it. If  somebody disagrees with your opinion it's not bleating, it's a different perspective . Live with it. All sorts of speculative issues are discussed here in an open manner. If you peruse other blogs the questions around Barry Bonds are amply discussed.
King Ryan - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 04:42 PM EDT (#186271) #
Of course it's an open forum.  And since it's an open forum, I am free to say I don't like the topic at hand and request we change it. 

Don't give me that "if you dont like it dont read it" bollocks.  I come here to read about the Jays and if I ignore all the pointless Bonds blathering then I have nothing to read, and that sucks!

I mean gee, why don't I just post some pornography on here.  After all, if you don't like it, don't read it! Why don't I post some essays about Shakespeare's Hamlet.  If you don't like them, don't read them! Don't give me that nonsense.  

Listen, I'm sorry, but if you think the Jays even have a 1% chance of signing Bonds, then you obviously have not paid any attention to our GM over the last 5 years.  I mean give me a break.   This is a guy who just released the teams best hitter, a guy who has a 1.026 OPS in May, because he said he didn't want to be benched.  Are you kidding me?  JP would rather take Thomas back then sign Bonds.  In fact, he'd probably take Shea F'ing Hillenbrand back before he signs Bonds.  Have you guys paid no attention to this man's public comments? To his actions?  To discuss Bonds is not a "speculative issue" any more than discussing if JP should sign Dwight Schrute to play shortstop.  It's not happening.  For luck's sakes, it is not happening.   The other blogs are amply discussing it because the other blogs are stupid.  DaBox is not stupid. 

Do you think we could get Matt Holliday? I think he is swell.

Wildrose - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 05:11 PM EDT (#186272) #
The other blogs are amply discussing it because the other blogs are stupid.

Part of this  discussion was  as an adjunct conversation about an argument  between Tom Tango and Bill James on both their respective blogs. If you think both these guys are "stupid" your entitled to your opinion.

If you posted pornography you'd be banned, if you wrote about Hamlet nobody would pay any attention. I count 33 comments about Bonds alone on this thread so obviously people other than you are paying attention . Like I said he's a very polarizing figure, I could well imagine the emotional arguments expanded exponentially a thousand fold, if some MLB team ever signed him.
Magpie - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 05:24 PM EDT (#186275) #
if you wrote about Hamlet nobody would pay any attention.

Hang on. I'd pay attention.

I have all kinds of things to say about Hamlet. Don't tempt me!
jerjapan - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 05:39 PM EDT (#186276) #
For the record, the last few comments were actually about whether Bonds is getting treated fairly based on his race, among other factors, not whether or not he should sign with the Jays. 

Also, it's unfair to compare posting about Bonds to posting pornography or Hamlet essays.  Straw man fallacy!  This is a baseball site, and baseball content is of course different from porn.

Wildrose - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 05:45 PM EDT (#186277) #
I have all kinds of things to say about Hamlet. Don't tempt me!


I can just imagine the resultant data tables. Here's what the BTF guys have to say on the James/Tango imbroglio.
Magpie - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 05:50 PM EDT (#186278) #
I can just imagine the resultant data tables.

None, I promise. I did think for a moment - hey, could there be a Shakespearean Hall of Names? Probably. But I only got as far as the one Horatio who's played in the majors, and went back to watching Dodgers and Mets.
jgadfly - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 05:59 PM EDT (#186279) #
Hey "King"... I apologize for getting you so perturbed... as a matter of fact I sort of stopped listening to JP around the time he was talking about B J Ryan's back ... but maybe that's just me ... I don't know who Dwight Schrute is but from his Googled picture he sort of looks like a Ryne Duren clone ... but can he hit with runners in scoring position?... because that's the thing that really gets me perturbed ... I don't know about other blogs being stupid but I agree with you when you say "DaBox is not stupid" ... I believe (perhaps naively) that DaBox does have a certain amount of credibility when it comes to influencing, if not JP, then informed baseball discussion such as the "Free Adam Lind" scenario (refresh my memory on what JP had said about Lind not being promoted this year?) ... one thing to remember about sharing one's humble opinions on the internet, people really can't  see one's tongue in cheek ... viva Nellie Fox ... and oh ...and just because I get really frustrated at seeing yet another Blue Jay runner get, yet again, LOB...  Free Barry !!!
owen - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 06:09 PM EDT (#186280) #
For those who enjoy Dave Zirin, he has more to say on Bonds.  Here is his comment on Bonds' absence from MLB this year.  Personally I think that Zirin is right.  But his articles are just op.eds. and would be stronger if backed by more evidence -  some reporting to go along with his commentary.
CSHunt68 - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 06:11 PM EDT (#186281) #

"My ideal lineup would be bringing in Bonds to be the full time DH. He had a 170 OPS+ last year. That is ridiculous, and obviously a huge upgrade at the position."

The game ain't played last year. It's THIS year I care about.

CSHunt68 - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 06:15 PM EDT (#186282) #

"Bonds can clearly push us over the top, and I really can't believe that anybody that calls themselves a Jays fan would be agaisnt that."

I disagree with your first supposition, which invalidates your conclusion. And James' projection presumed a full year for BB - not sitting out the first few months. I hardly think Tango is "putting him in his place". I'll take James' conclusion over yours, thanks.

Dave Till - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 06:21 PM EDT (#186283) #
I don't know why you assume he treats everybody badly, and I hope it's not because of how the media portrays him.

For a complete portrait of Bonds, I recommend Love Me, Hate Me by Jeff Pearlman: it's an exhaustive biography of the man.

The book describes him as a tragic figure, in a way: his father was an alcoholic and absent parent, and Barry was recognized as an athletic god, and given special treatment, from early childhood. As a result, Barry grew up with minimal social skills and an enormous sense of entitlement.

Aging star athletes have a very difficult adjustment to make late in their careers. They've spent their whole lives being the very best at what they do, and being showered with money and adoration for their talents. When such players start to decline, the first reaction is, inevitably and understandably, denial: I can still hit. I've always hit. I'm just in a slump, that's all.

Players at the beginning of their decline still demand star salaries and star treatment. Once they've gotten used to the fact that their skills have declined, and they are only useful as a role player, they can really help a team. But they have to get over that hump.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that Bonds has made that adjustment yet, as basically the Giants were built around him. That's why I don't want him on the Jays. That, and the pending felony charges. And he's 44.
Chuck - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 06:26 PM EDT (#186285) #
Using both the name of this thread and the talk of Bonds as a segue, Josh Banks has a shutout going against Bonds' old team (after his shutout stint in long relief in his last outing).
CSHunt68 - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 06:29 PM EDT (#186287) #

"The odds of the Jays signing Bonds are exactly equal to the odds of the Jays signing me."

I think that's probably not true. Just a wild guess. ... Again, if you don't wanna read about it, I can recommend any number of non-baseball sites.

Magpie - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 06:36 PM EDT (#186290) #
The struggles of Carlos Delgado (slugging .390? Carlos?) have attracted more attention, but the Mets other Carlos (Beltran) hasn't exactly been lighting it up either. But Beltran just hit a two run homer (his 5th) to tie the game in the eighth. Mets now lead, and I'm going to see Billy Wagner. Which is fun.

And the Braves have a one-run lead. On the road. I believe they've lost 19 straight one-run games on the road, so this bears watching.

Magpie - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 06:56 PM EDT (#186291) #
Josh Banks has a shutout going against Bonds' old team (after his shutout stint in long relief in his last outing).

He didn't get the shutout - after beginning his NL career with 16 straight shutout innings, the Giants scored one (which should be unearned, wait and see) in the bottom of the ninth. He got the CG win, and Josh Towers must be wondering why on earth he signed with Colorado.
King Ryan - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 07:05 PM EDT (#186292) #
Hey "King"... I apologize for getting you so perturbed...

I suppose you could say that the king is marvellous distemp'red...
The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 07:33 PM EDT (#186295) #

On paper, he would be a great acquisition: the Jays aren't getting a lot of offensive production from LF/DH, and Bonds' numbers were still very good last year. But, in the real world, it would be a disaster. Bonds would demand an enormous salary, insist on playing left field and batting fourth every day, request all kinds of strange and exotic perks, and likely treat everyone around him very badly. Any gain from Bonds would be offset by reduced performance from his teammates. It's not worth itHo.

How can you assume that he would do any of those things? Reportedly, nobody has even offered Barry the major league minimum, but even if did cost 10M pro-rated it would be a fantastic deal still. I'm not sure why he would insist on playing left field because he knows better than anybody about the injury risk of doing so, but even if he did, the guy still isn't any worse than Matt Stairs out there and really not much worse than Shannon Stewart. If he wanted to bat 4th every day, that would be fantastic,  though I'd bat him 3rd. Jeremy Accardo mentioned that he had absolutely no problem with Bonds, and nobody in baseball has spoke out about him being a bad teammate, so I'm not exactly sure why you'd make the crazy assumption that his teammates wouldn't like him, and would do worse as a result. Seriously, these subjective arguments are terrible reasons not to do a move like this.

The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 07:41 PM EDT (#186296) #

Well, like I said - I can see why baseball fans are thinking about Bonds (and the spectacle of having him hauled off to court in the midst of the pennant race would be novel as well). But if Bonds is thinking about baseball, he's absolutely nuts.

Why? He's a baseball player, and I'm sure his lawyers have prepared for his trial after the season thoroughly. What do you think he should be thinking about?


And at this stage of their careers, Manny really is a significantly better defensive player (never mind Stewart), although I agree that a LF's defense is mostly a non-issue. All these guys are left fielders for a reason.

Manny Ramirez is BY FAR the worst defensive outfielder in baseball today, not Barry Bonds. Check Bill James' Fielding Bible.

By the way, should he actually sign with an AL team, I'm sure he'll hit but I can confidently guarantee he won't put up an OPS+ of 170. Mainly because he'll draw only half as many walks in the new league. They haven't spent the past fifteen years being terrorized by him. He'll be pitched to much more aggressively.

Maybe you haven't actually watched Barry Bonds in recent years, but he gets walks because he's an incredibly skillful hitter. His eye and bat speed are just as good as they always were. He's not suddenly going to draw only half as many walks just because he's in a new league. That's ridiculous. He may not put up a 170 OPS+, but even if he does significantly decline (and there is no reason to believe he will), he'd still likely put up atleast a 130 OPS+, which would clearly be an upgrade on anything we are currently playing at the position.

 Magpie... I expected better arguments than these from you.

The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 07:44 PM EDT (#186297) #

Last time I looked, only one player had been indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury. He's looking at up to five years in prison for the perjury and up to ten years for the obstruction of justice.

He needs to focus on that.

So you suggest that he spend that entire year brooding on his impending court case instead of making a living in the game he loves and possibly finally achieving his elusive goal of winning a World Series? Seriously?

The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 07:49 PM EDT (#186298) #

He made a wonderful snag and throw from deep in the hole last night.

It really wasn't all that wonderful. If Eckstein was a better defensive shortstop, that play would have been routine.

The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 07:52 PM EDT (#186299) #

I agree with Lefty.

For the love of luck, Barry Bonds is not signing here.  He never was and he never will.  The odds of the Jays signing Bonds are exactly equal to the odds of the Jays signing me.  It's not happening.  To even discuss its possibility is a waste of time and a waste of bytes.

Let it go already, please.  PLEASE just let it go.

When your team can become the best team in baseball by merely signing one player and they are not doing it, it's kind of a big deal. And as long as the Jays remain in the position they are, it's a topic that is never going to be fully dropped.

The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 07:56 PM EDT (#186300) #

Listen, I'm sorry, but if you think the Jays even have a 1% chance of signing Bonds, then you obviously have not paid any attention to our GM over the last 5 years.  I mean give me a break.   This is a guy who just released the teams best hitter, a guy who has a 1.026 OPS in May, because he said he didn't want to be benched.  Are you kidding me?  JP would rather take Thomas back then sign Bonds.  In fact, he'd probably take Shea F'ing Hillenbrand back before he signs Bonds.  Have you guys paid no attention to this man's public comments? To his actions?  To discuss Bonds is not a "speculative issue" any more than discussing if JP should sign Dwight Schrute to play shortstop.  It's not happening.  For luck's sakes, it is not happening.   The other blogs are amply discussing it because the other blogs are stupid.  DaBox is not stupid. 

I really don't think JP has had any say in this. I'm fairly sure he realizes the immense value of Barry's bat. The fact that Bonds is not on this team at this point is because of Paul Godfrey.

CSHunt68 - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 08:07 PM EDT (#186301) #

"When your team can become the best team in baseball by merely signing one player and they are not doing it,"

It's unfortunate that, after decades of sabermetric research, statements like this continue to be made in otherwise-intelligent baseball forums. :( It looks like Bill James was really wasting his time ...

King Ryan - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 08:08 PM EDT (#186302) #

When your team can become the best team in baseball by merely signing one player and they are not doing it, it's kind of a big deal. And as long as the Jays remain in the position they are, it's a topic that is never going to be fully dropped.


You know how else the Jays could improve themselves?  They could trade for Albert Pujols.

But nobody talks about that.  Why? Because it is not going to happen.  And, it is the same thing with Bonds. It is not going to happen.  I am not sure how much more clear JP can make it.  This guy values "character" over everything, including batting ability.  He always has.  He has made this unbelievably clear both through his words and his actions.  For him to sign Barry Bonds would be like me becoming a Red Sox fan.  It will never, ever happen.

And oh how I hate this WYSIWYG editor.

The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 08:22 PM EDT (#186303) #

I disagree with your first supposition, which invalidates your conclusion. And James' projection presumed a full year for BB - not sitting out the first few months. I hardly think Tango is "putting him in his place". I'll take James' conclusion over yours, thanks.

Haha, do you really think that sitting out for the few months will drastically change his projection of OPS? And maybe you didn't read what was presented to you, but Tango is actually using logical arguments that make sense as opposed to whatever it is that James is arguing.

I can't believe people on this site are being this ridiculous...oh wait I can.

The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 08:27 PM EDT (#186304) #

But nobody talks about that.  Why? Because it is not going to happen.  And, it is the same thing with Bonds. It is not going to happen.  I am not sure how much more clear JP can make it.  This guy values "character" over everything, including batting ability.  He always has.  He has made this unbelievably clear both through his words and his actions.  For him to sign Barry Bonds would be like me becoming a Red Sox fan.  It will never, ever happen.

JP only made that clear after Godfrey made it clear. During the 1st time it was brought up during JaysTalk, JP was very open about it, but said it was something it would have to be discussed. On the 2nd Jays talk (conveniently after Godfrey had spoken out in the media about how it was something that was never going to happen), the signing of Barry Bonds became a situation where Toronto would be "selling their souls."

I certainly don't believe that JP values character more than his job.

The_Game - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 08:32 PM EDT (#186305) #

It's unfortunate that, after decades of sabermetric research, statements like this continue to be made in otherwise-intelligent baseball forums. :( It looks like Bill James was really wasting his time ...

Well the Jays are 2nd in 3rd order Pythagorean wins in the major leagues, is it really that much of a stretch that adding one of the best hitters in the majors would push them above the Red Sox?

Mike Green - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 08:49 PM EDT (#186306) #
Jay Bruce's first homer is a 10th inning walk-off job.  So, when he hangs up his spikes, what will be the first digit in front of his career home run total? I am going to guess "3".
Quwyetr - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 08:58 PM EDT (#186307) #
No matter how good Bond's lawyers are, he should nonetheless be focused on his charges. Baseball in the end is just a job for him and anyone would be bothered enough to be distracted a bit at their job with such serious charges. As others have said, the odds of Bonds coming here is nil to none. An OPS+ of about 130 could be otherwise attained by finding a better platoon mate for Stairs who would both cost less in the amount of money and headaches.
Magpie - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 09:40 PM EDT (#186311) #
Jay Bruce's first homer is a 10th inning walk-off job.

And that is 20 consecutive one-run losses on the road for Atlanta, going back to last August. This is getting downright weird.
scottt - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 09:57 PM EDT (#186312) #
Well the Jays are 2nd in 3rd order Pythagorean wins in the major leagues, is it really that much of a stretch that adding one of the best hitters in the majors would push them above the Red Sox?

Adding one of the oldest and most expensive player in the major when he comes with some much uncertainty?

Wow. Banks is looking great. 

Towers signed a funky contract with Colorado. $400K for the year. 1.4 million for making the starting roster. 1.3 million for pitching in 35 games--which is only possible out of the pen.

Looks like Scutaro is blocking Hill from returning. Rightly so as Marco has the first hit of the game for Toronto. I predict Eckstein will be given some precautionary rest tomorrow so that Scutaro can man short stop.
scottt - Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 10:52 PM EDT (#186313) #
I don't remember a pitcher being credited with a wild pitch and a strike out on the same throw before. Is that uncommon?
CSHunt68 - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 12:51 AM EDT (#186316) #
"Haha, do you really think that sitting out for the few months will drastically change his projection of OPS? And maybe you didn't read what was presented to you, but Tango is actually using logical arguments that make sense as opposed to whatever it is that James is arguing.

I can't believe people on this site are being this ridiculous...oh wait I can."

Yeah, I do. He's old. He hasn't played in MANY months. What on earth makes you think his projection should stand?! Oh, yeah - being ridiculous. Right, I get it. Ridiculous, like saying that Bill James doesn't make any sense.

But, you do. :-/ ... Riiiiiiiiiight.

The_Game - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 01:52 AM EDT (#186317) #

Adding one of the oldest and most expensive player in the major when he comes with some much uncertainty?

Barry Bonds wouldn't be the one of the most expensive players in the majors. He wasn't even that last year. Bonds' agent also said they'd be willing to take the minimum in the right situation.

And where is the uncertainty? He's a fantastic hitter, this hasn't changed. Even if you assume a decline, he'd be far better than anything the Jays are throwing out there offensively.

Elijah - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 02:00 AM EDT (#186318) #
I just got back from the game tonight.  I haven't read much on this since Coach's diatribe 4-5 years ago but Shannon Stewart is terrible in left field. Or still terrible. He gets unbelievably bad jumps and makes poor reads after contact. I couldn't stand it. Two balls dropped tonight that he should have caught and one more he caught after a really bad initial break on the ball.

I usually don't post stuff like "we should sign this guy" or that guy but unless Kenny Lofton has specifically said, "I don't want to go to Toronto," I think the team go all out to sign him because Stewart is just not the answer. Lofton isn't either but he's still an improvement even though he turned 41 today.

The_Game - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 02:04 AM EDT (#186319) #

Yeah, I do. He's old. He hasn't played in MANY months. What on earth makes you think his projection should stand?! Oh, yeah - being ridiculous. Right, I get it. Ridiculous, like saying that Bill James doesn't make any sense.

But, you do. :-/ ... Riiiiiiiiiight.

Barry Bonds was old last year. He put up a 170 OPS+. He was old in 2004 when he put up the greatest offensive season in history. He was old in 2001 when he broke the single-season home run record. What makes you think him being old will make him significantly decline from where he was last year?

And why would the fact that he hasn't played since last September make any difference to somebody with such a great eye and bat speed? From what I understand he's been working out, as well. Hitters like him don't suddenly lose their talent because they've been away from the game for 6-7 months. And yes, it is a ridiculous argument from people clearly looking to find something wrong with signing Barry Bonds.

And I don't appear to be the only one saying that Bill James is way off the mark here. Tom Tamgo has been pointing out the extreme faults in what James is saying. The most funny point being that James' own book projects that Bonds is still the best hitter in baseball.

The_Game - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 02:08 AM EDT (#186320) #

I just got back from the game tonight.  I haven't read much on this since Coach's diatribe 4-5 years ago but Shannon Stewart is terrible in left field. Or still terrible. He gets unbelievably bad jumps and makes poor reads after contact. I couldn't stand it. Two balls dropped tonight that he should have caught and one more he caught after a really bad initial break on the ball.

I usually don't post stuff like "we should sign this guy" or that guy but unless Kenny Lofton has specifically said, "I don't want to go to Toronto," I think the team go all out to sign him because Stewart is just not the answer. Lofton isn't either but he's still an improvement even though he turned 41 today.

Barry Bonds actually is the true answer (and he might still be better defensively than Stewart), but you're right, practically anybody would be a better option than Stewart.

Magpie - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 03:19 AM EDT (#186323) #
I don't remember a pitcher being credited with a wild pitch and a strike out on the same throw before. Is that uncommon?

When a batter strikes out but reaches first because the ball got away from the catcher, it has to be either a wild pitch or a passed ball. Not all that  uncommon. Striking out four batters in an inning - that's uncommon, but it happens as well.
Lefty - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 03:36 AM EDT (#186324) #
Last guy I seen do that was Paul Shuey, Cleveland Indians.
CSHunt68 - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 12:24 PM EDT (#186331) #

Tango, not "Tamgo". And Tango has a history of calling Bill James out, so take it with a grain of salt.

Bonds' OPS+ since age 37: 268, 231, 263, 174, 156, 170. Sorry, but if you don't see decline and wonder whether he's about to fall off a cliff, you're clearly not thinking straight. Everyone works out. Not everyone's 42 and hasn't played in approaching a year.

scottt - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 02:18 PM EDT (#186333) #
When a batter strikes out but reaches first because the ball got away from the catcher, it has to be either a wild pitch or a passed ball. Not all that  uncommon. Striking out four batters in an inning - that's uncommon, but it happens as well.

My son is playing senior ball right now. I've seen countless dropped third strikes; all passed balls. Hitters don't usually swings on wild pitches, although, from the stand, it does look tempting on occasion to go after something the catcher has no chance to block. Sounds cheap and I don't know if the umpire has to permit that or not.  I guess when hitters are checking their swings, it's probably a good idea to take first just in case.

Shades of ALCS 2005, game 2. That's probably the second most famous dropped 3rd strike and I wasn't watching back in '41.
The_Game - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 03:10 PM EDT (#186336) #

Tango, not "Tamgo". And Tango has a history of calling Bill James out, so take it with a grain of salt.

Spelt it right earlier, so it was just a typo.

Bonds' OPS+ since age 37: 268, 231, 263, 174, 156, 170. Sorry, but if you don't see decline and wonder whether he's about to fall off a cliff, you're clearly not thinking straight. Everyone works out. Not everyone's 42 and hasn't played in approaching a year.

So he's declined from being the best hitter in the league....to still being the best hitter of the league. I think I'll take the risk on him with that kind of reward.

Pistol - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 07:08 PM EDT (#186344) #

And really, if he does fall off a cliff what have you lost besides a little money?  It's not like you have to sign him to a three year contract.

If the Jays were really worried about an old player falling off a cliff they never would have signed Frank Thomas to a 2 year contract with a vesting option.

But I think we all realize that no matter what the merit of it is, the Jays aren't signing Bonds.

Pistol - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 07:17 PM EDT (#186345) #

In other news, Josh Banks has a 0.00 ERA for the Padres in 17 innings.

Too bad the Jays didn't have room to protect him what with top prospects Jean Machi, Russ Adams, Hector Luna, and Buck Coats filling out the 40 man roster.

Lefty - Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 07:30 PM EDT (#186346) #
Just to clarify, I was refering to a pitcher striking out four in an inning.
TDIB 30 May 2008: How 'bout That Pitching? | 105 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.