Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - 18 August: It's Like You Never Left (with an Update!)

18 August: It's Like You Never Left (with an Update!)

That's 50 games for the New Boss, and a 29-21 mark since the Second Coming. If you play .580 ball for the entire season, you win 94 games. If they play .580 ball for the rest of this season, they'll finish with 86 wins in what will officially be a Highly Disappointing Season.

Well, what's different? How's everybody played for the New Guy?

                GP  AB   R   H  2B  3B  HR RBI  BB  SO  SB CS SH SF  HB GDP  BAVG  OBP   SLG   OPS   RC  RC/27    
                                                                                                  
Alex Rios       47 200  34  63   20   4   6  27   9  28  15  2  0  1   1   6  .315  .346  .545  .891  37  6.83    
Adam Lind       46 167  28  55   11   4   8  34   9  24   1  0  1  4   2   6  .329  .361  .587  .947  34  7.43    
Lyle Overbay    50 177  30  49   13   0   3  21  24  40   0  0  0  2   3   5  .277  .365  .401  .767  27  5.26    
Joe Inglett     39 153  21  46    5   4   1  16   9  24   5  0  5  0   2   0  .301  .337  .405  .743  24  5.38    
Marco Scutaro   47 181  29  49    6   0   2  18  18  22   1  0  2  2   3   4  .271  .340  .337  .677  22  4.15    
Scott Rolen     39 135  20  30    8   0   4  21  18  27   1  0  0  1   5   4  .222  .333  .370  .704  18  4.23    
Matt Stairs     38 111  14  27    4   1   3  15  20  40   0  0  0  1   1   2  .243  .361  .378  .739  17  4.98    
Vernon Wells    24  98  16  30    7   0   3  23   5  13   2  0  0  3   1   2  .306  .336  .469  .806  16  5.72    
Rod Barajas     36 138  19  30    6   0   5  19   5  20   0  0  0  2   3   2  .217  .257  .370  .626  13  3.05    
John McDonald   34  85   9  22    6   0   1  13   5   4   1  0  4  2   0   0  .259  .281  .365  .646  10  3.74    
David Eckstein  23  72   6  19    7   0   0   5   7   9   0  0  2  0   1   1  .264  .329  .361  .690   9  4.28    
Brad Wilkerson  38  80   4  13    3   2   0   7  11  18   0  0  0  3   1   1  .163  .263  .250  .513   6  2.27    
Kevin Mench     17  35   5   7    5   0   0   3   6  10   1  0  0  0   0   0  .200  .317  .343  .660   4  4.07    
Gregg Zaun      22  62   5   9    2   0   1   8  11   9   0  0  0  0   0   2  .145  .274  .226  .500   4  2.00    


                G  ST  CG   W   L  SV HLD  IP    H   R   ER  BB  SO  HR  BFP  AVG    ERA
                                                                   
Roy Halladay   11  11   3   6   3   0   0  83.3  69  22  19  19  73   6  334  .225    2.05
A.J. Burnett   11  11   0   9   2   0   0  72.3  71  33  30  23  75  10  308  .256    3.73
Jesse Litsch    7   7   0   1   4   0   0  39.7  44  30  23   8  18   6  174  .273    5.22
Shaun Marcum    6   6   0   3   1   0   0  32.7  37  21  20  14  21   9  146  .285    5.51
John Parrish    7   4   0   1   0   0   0  26.7  27  12  12  10  15   2  109  .273    4.05
David Purcey    4   4   0   2   2   0   0  23.0  18  11  11   8  20   4   94  .217    4.30
Dustin McGowan  4   4   0   1   2   0   0  22.3  27  16  13   6  13   2   99  .297    5.24
Scott Richmond  3   3   0   0   2   0   0  16.0  23   9   9   1  13   1   71  .338    5.06
Scott Downs    23   0   0   0   1   0   8  27.7  15   5   4   8  24   1  104  .160    1.30
B.J. Ryan      21   0   0   1   1   9   0  20.0  18   8   8   8  16   1   84  .240    3.60
Jesse Carlson  21   0   0   3   1   0   7  19.0  16   7   6   8  20   2   77  .239    2.84
Brandon League 15   0   0   0   0   1   1  18.0  14   4   3  10  12   1   78  .212    1.50
Jason Frasor   16   0   0   0   1   0   1  15.3  11  10   9  10  16   1   70  .186    5.28
Shawn Camp     12   0   0   2   0   0   2  14.3  14   5   5   6  12   0   59  .264    3.14
Brian Tallet   10   0   0   0   0   0   1   9.7   8   6   6   1   9   2   38  .216    5.59
Brian Wolfe     4   0   0   0   1   0   0   4.3   2   1   1   3   4   0   16  .167    2.08

First, let's observe that the team has certainly not been healthier since Gaston took over. Vernon Wells has missed half the games, Aaron Hill has missed them all. Scott Rolen was ineffective at the plate and now has been shut down, for the moment at least. Only Burnett and Halladay have made all of their starts - Marcum and McGowan were lost to injury, and Litsch had to be sent back to the shop for repairs.

Four hitters have been consistently productive: Lind, Rios, Overbay, and Inglett. Wells has hit well when he's been in the lineup, but he's missed more games than he's played.

And Doc and A.J. have carried the pitching staff, with plenty of support from the pen.

The UPDATE!

Here's how the offense has performed under the two managers, with all figures pro-rated to 162 games:

           G   AB    R    H    2B   3B  HR   RBI  BB   SO   SB   CS  SH SF  HBP  GDP  BAVG  OBP  SLG   OPS

Gaston    162 5489  778  1455  334  49  120  745  509  933   87   6  45 68   75  113  .265  .329 .409  .739
Gibbons   162 5480  650  1408  267  31  107  606  617  946  103  50  46 55   59  184  .257  .333 .376  .709

Fewer walks and more extra-base hits - but the most striking difference is the reduction of lost base-runners, by basically eliminating the CS and reducing the GDPs.

Posted by Magpie on Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:30 AM EDT.

18 August: It's Like You Never Left (with an Update!) | 106 comments | Create New Account

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

d_moro2002 - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 02:50 AM EDT (#190812) #

So, in esence, what everybody basically thought--that Cito is doing a better job than Gibbons did. WAY better. Of course, Wilner will point out that the "norms" were more likely to rebound than not, and that they can't be solely attributed to Gaston--to which I say Poppycock (and a few other choice words).

Confidence matters, whether Wilner or anyone else want to concede it does or not. The players trust Cito. You know why? Not because he won a couple of world series (although that doesn't hurt), but because he trusts the players. Cito is not going to yank his starter because he's having a bad game. He is going to trust his relievers unless t hey tell him otherwise. with consistent poor play.

He is willing to make a change when necessary, but not for the sake of making a change. He won't go lefty right lefty righty lefty righty for six batters until his bullpen is worn out.

He actually goes out and stresses having an aggressive plan at the plate. He doesn't just give them the 'hit it the other way" mantra. He talks to the young players and looks like he cares when he manages (usually standing on the top step), not with his thumb down his pants. He doesn't need to be cocky so he doesn't get called out by players on the team and doesn't have to put up with hissyfits or other BS... Gibbons has the gravitas of a banana peel.

Gibbons, quite simply, did whatever JP wanted him too, and tried not to rock the boat too much. That bought him a free pass until management had had enough. He couldn't even fill out lineup cards right.

Only in Toronto do we put up with these jerkoff below average minor league castaway managers. It's really too bad. We really should be the Angels this year, even without the pop they've got.

TamRa - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:08 AM EDT (#190813) #

Laying aside Wells� missed time, what jumps out at me offensively is that there are three OPS numbers there that are below expectations:

Rolen - Shoulder
Stairs - Age presumably
Overbay - ???

Hopefully just an off year.

I don�t argue that it changes the overall outcome, but I do find some satisfaction in what is revealed by segmenting the season. This is NOT a team that has been uniformly mediocre this season, rather, it�s a team that is most of the time quite good, which has managed to run off two horrendously bad streaks: one 14 games long, and one 19 games long. I had been defining the second one as 14 games as well, partly out of a compulsive desire for symmetry and partly as a concession that going 2-4 in LA and NY is to be expected. Before the first one, they were 8-6 (an inconclusive sample of course) but in between those two bad stretches the Jays went 20-9, and since the end of the second one they are 28-21 - that�s a cumulative 56-35 (.609).

The first bad stretch was the second half of April. During that time they looked like this (offensively) as a team:
(AB-R-H-2B-3B-HR-RBI-BB-IBB-SO-HBH-SH-SF-GDP-SB-CS-BA-OBP-SLG-OPS)

467   40  101  18   3   9   33   55   1   64   4   4   1  16    8   2  .216  .304  .325  .629

During the second collapse, and the one that cost Gibby his job, btw, this is the team line:

632   67  150  35   2  12   61   78   4  117   7   5  10  21    9   5  .237  .323  .356  .679

Now compare that to their collective output in the three periods of quality play:

 485   76  137  20   2  10   73   60   1   84  10   6   5  21   14   8  .282  .370  .394  .764
 986  117  271  52   7  18  112   95   7  173   7   6   9  29   16   8  .275  .340  .397  .737
1579  222  411  90  14  36  214  147  11  272  21  14  21  31   27   2  .260  .327  .403  .730

Cumulatively, that's .270 .340 ..402 .742
which is not great, but puts you more or less tied with the Twins for the ninth best offense in the league. It is, however, impressive to me that the Jays won at such a clip with that rather mediocre offensive production. No secret why.

I don't want this reply to get too huge so I will attempt, in the one which follows, to find a pattern among our major offensive players (or at least those expected to be major) for each segment. I'm not sure yet if there's any point in referencing the pitching in a similar manner.

TamRa - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:16 AM EDT (#190814) #

Confidence matters, whether Wilner or anyone else want to concede it does or not. The players trust Cito.

Explain, then, why the Jays hit slightly better for the entire month of May, than they have since Cito took over, and then still collapsed offensively for three weeks after having done so relatively well.

If, as you say, it's all about confidence then surely after kicking ass for a month the team should have been loaded with it, right? In your "Gibby Sucks/Cito Rocks" scenerio, why did the Jays hit as well in May as they have under Cito?

I think gibbons properly lost his job because he could not stop the second slide, he did not have solutions that worked to reverse what was going on. Time will tell if - when presented with a similar slump, Cito will do better.
But the stats do not support the idea that the Jays are hitting as they are now simply because "Everybody Loves Cito"

d_moro2002 - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 04:15 AM EDT (#190815) #

Of course they haven't hit better than May. Because my post has nothing to do with stats--except for the final results.

I have argued (not on this site) that this team is poor offensively. Thus, I didn't expect them to greatly outproduce Gibbon's offensively. Rather, I expected them to produce AT THE RIGHT TIME; at least enough to win more.

If you look at the Angels and Minnesota the only difference between what they do offensively and what we do is they hit in the clutch. Why is that? They do the little things that can't be quantified statswise. Moving runners over, having more speed, and better overall power-talent (from the left side) matters in a sweepover effect on the lineup. That's why they are "Pythagorean mysteries"

When you cut through all the cr%p, this was a poorly managed average offensive outfit whose offensive onfidence in that area was so shaken under Gibbons and the new hitting coach it's going to take until next year for it to be completely fixed. Look at Tampa's offence right now with their two main weapons on the DL--they are still scoring like they never left--you know why? They have confidence in each other. They don't beat themselves. Are we to say they are just "lucky"? I doubt it.

Do you see what the team did today? That is a result of a manager showing confidence in a group of players getting the job done. Playing better now is tougher than playing in May--the season is much farther along and nobody trying to hold the fort down. They are simply playing for jobs under the new manager. Under a guy who has shown he will provide time to those who produce. Cito has: Scutaro (playing like he did before Rolen got all his starts (undeserved). assisted in Lind's improvement.(obvious) assisted in Mcdonald's improvement(pulling the ball) gotten Overbay to make a slight improvement (he is at least attemting to swing at borderline pitches now) helped in Rios' half decent improvement (yes, he still has his moments, but is not being moved around the lineup like a lost boy and tries to at least make contact instead of taking two pitches every at bat) Wells improvement (more agressive swings at better pitches) Not playing the underperforming and rapidly declining zaun. (allowing the running game to be controlled more, and adding pop to the lineup) Opting for the best defensive alignment as often as possible. (playing McDonald and Overbay but not expecting them to produce much offensively)

The only player who Cito hasn't affected is Barajas, who came from outside the organization and wasn't affected by Gibbons lameness. And thus, succeeded. And Gaston's team won't go on a prolonged streak like Gibbons, because the confidence he shows will make the players hang on tougher and battle harder. Gibbons liked to play musical chairs so much all the chairs were gone and nobody wanted to play for him anymore. "The ship is sinking"...why am I not surprised that was written.

Alex Obal - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 04:24 AM EDT (#190816) #

27/29 stealing bases?! Am I reading that right? Even when you factor in Voodoo Joe getting picked off a couple of times, that's pretty respectable.

Far as I can tell from ESPN's team stats, they were 47/70 under Gibbons. That's one improvement I might be willing to chalk up to Cito, especially because he's got the reputation for really focusing on reading pitchers. Might be. Small sample.

TamRa - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 05:02 AM EDT (#190817) #

Each player in the lineup, with each of the five sections in secession.

Overbay-

 51   4  14  2  1  0   5   6   0  14   0   0   0   3   0  1  .275  .351  .353  .704 
 39   5  10  0  0  1   2  12   0   6   0   0   0   2   0  0  .256  .431  .333  .764
 91  15  27  7  0  4  14  14   1  21   0   0   2   2   0  1  .297  .383  .505  .888
 63   7  13  3  1  1   7  11   0  13   0   0   1   7   1  0  .206  .320  .333  .653 
164  27  44 11  0  3  19  23   2  38   3   0   2   3   0  0  .268  .365  .390  .755

Analysis: Overbay not a main culprit in first slump, disappeared during second one. But outside of May his power is down over the whole season.

Hill -

50   6  16  3  0  1   9   4   0   6   1   1   1   2   1  0  .320  .375  .440  .815 
54   4  11  4  0  0   1   3   0   6   0   1   0   0   1  0  .204  .246  .278  .524
98   8  25  7  0  0   7   9   0  18   1   2   0   2   2  2  .255  .324  .327  .651

Analysis: Disappeared during the first slump, not close to his normal level even in May.

Rolen-

 19   1   6  4  0  1   4   2   0   4   0   0   0   1   1  0  .316  .381  .684 1.065 
102  15  31  8  2  1   9  12   1  15   2   0   1   1   3  0  .304  .385  .451  .836
 65   5  13  2  0  1   4   8   0  10   3   0   0   4   0  0  .200  .316  .277  .593
128  19  29  8  0  4  21  16   0  27   5   0   1   4   1  0  .227  .333  .383  .716

Analysis: The first 19 are an irrelevant sample size, he was not the Scott Rolen of 
legend in May but he was good.He went off the cliff with Hill during the second slump, 
then came back strong at the end of June but only briefly before his shoulder took the 
bat from him. I hadn't noticed it before but one could argue that but for a nine game 
hot streak at the end of June, during which he hit...

32   6  13  4  0  3   9   3   0   4   2   0   0   1   0  0  .406  .486  .813 1.299

...he's been an offensive liability since May 30. This is his line since then, without 
those nine games:

161  18  29 6  0  2  16  21   0  33   6   0   1   7   1  0  .180  .275  .255  .530

I have to say, as an aside, that this really colors my opinion of how much impact the 
shoulder is having on him and his ability to recover his bat going forward. It's by far 
the most grim news of the night for me.

Rios-

 50  11  15  4  0  1   9  12   1  15   0   0   1   0   4  2  .300  .429  .440  .869
 48   5  15  2  1  1   5   2   0   7   0   0   1   1   2  0  .313  .333  .458  .791
126  13  29  6  1  1   9   7   1  30   0   0   0   8   6  1  .230  .271  .317  .588
 70  10  20  6  0  0   4   5   0  14   0   0   1   2   3  2  .286  .329  .371  .700
185  31  56 14  4  6  25   9   0  27   1   0   1   5  15  2  .303  .337  .519  .856

Here's a strange. While the rest of the team was smoking the league in May, Rios took 
the month off. He started off well, slumped a bit during the first team-slomp, but wasn't
 bad, then recovered some while everyone else was going south. One might hesitate a guess 
that he tried to do it all by himself while the first slump was going on and screwed up his 
swing. Still, here's the one guy you can probably make a good case for Cito getting the 
credit for. Pro-rate Rios' work over the last 44 games to 162 games and you get:

52 doubles, 14 triples, 22 homers, 92 RBI, 55 SB

This gives me a lot of confidence going into next season.

Wells-

58  14  20  3  0  3  14   7   0   8   0   0   0   3   1  0  .345  .415  .552  .967
50   2   7  0  0  1   3   5   0   6   0   0   0   2   0  1  .140  .218  .200  .418
31   5  12  2  1  1   7   2   0   3   1   0   1   1   0  1  .387  .429  .613 1.042
53   7  15  2  0  2   4   0   0   7   0   0   2   3   1  0  .283  .273  .434  .707
85  13  25  6  0  3  22   3   0  10   1   0   3   1   2  0  .294  .315  .471  .786

Analysis: Bang-up start, horrendous during the first team-slump, came out of it well 
in a small sample before getting hurt. Was unimpressive upon his return in June and 
returned to more-or-less "normal" levels since. Fairly well parallels the team pattern 
in the games he played.

Stairs-

 34   6  10  0  0  1   3   2   0   5   0   0   1   3   0  0  .294  .324  .382  .706
 39   5  13  1  0  2   3   2   1   6   1   0   0   1   0  0  .333  .381  .513  .894
 71  10  17  3  0  3  10   8   2  20   1   0   0   3   0  1  .239  .325  .408  .733
 48   7   9  2  0  2  10   7   0  14   1   0   0   1   1  0  .188  .304  .354  .658
110  14  26  4  1  3  15  20   5  40   1   0   1   2   0  0  .236  .356  .373  .729

Analysis: Immune to the first slump, in fact it was his only productive stretch of the 
season. The Jays might actually be better off eating the one mil he's owed rather than 
having him hear next year.

Barajas (not an expected big bat but has had a bigger role)-

 13   1   5  2  0  0   2   0   0   4   0   0   0   2   0  0  .385  .385  .538  .923
 24   1   2  0  0  1   1   1   0   3   2   0   0   1   0  0  .083  .185  .208  .393
 50   8  19  5  0  2  12   5   0   8   0   0   0   0   0  0  .380  .436  .600 1.036
 59   7  17  5  0  2   8   4   0  11   2   0   0   1   0  0  .288  .354  .475  .829
126  17  27  5  0  5  17   4   0  17   1   0   2   2   0  0  .214  .241  .373  .614

Analysis: essentially played the part of Alex Rios in May and did very well during the 
second team-slump. Has gone back to being Rod Barajas since Cito took over.

Zaun (simply to compliment Barajas)-

41   3  10  2  0  0   3   3   0   4   0   2   0   1   2  1  .244  .295  .293  .588
33   5  10  3  0  1   1   9   0   3   0   0   0   1   0  0  .303  .452  .485  .937 
54   5  14  1  0  1   4   5   0   8   0   1   1   1   0  0  .259  .317  .333  .650
 9   4   3  1  0  2   5   4   0   2   0   0   0   0   0  0  .333  .538 1.111 1.649
61   5   9  2  0  1   8  11   1   9   0   0   0   2   0  0  .148  .278  .230  .508

Analysis: like Stairs, he did not participate in the first slump, but hasn't sustained 
a high level in the rest of the season. He just might be done.

We all know what Lind has done since taking over as opposed to what (primarily) Stewart was doing before.
But let's look anyway:

Stewart -
29   2   7  0  0  0   2   5   0   3   0   0   1   1   0  0  .241  .343  .241  .584
26   3   4  1  1  0   2   4   0   4   0   0   0   3   0  0  .154  .267  .269  .536
98   8  30  3  1  1  10   9   1   9   1   0   1   4   3  1  .306  .367  .388  .755
22   1   1  0  0  0   0   4   0   2   0   0   0   0   0  0  .045  .192  .045  .237

Analysis: awful during first team-slump but wasn't good before it either, was only 
what JP thought he was getting in May, no way to say how he would have played out t
he rest of the season.

Lind - 

161  26  52 10  4  7  30   9   1  24   2   1   4   6   1  0  .323  .358  .565  .923

Analysis: That's the second call up, no use in referencing the 19 earlier at bats. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what do we see here? No clear pattern. Certainly not a "Cito makes everything 
right with the world" pattern. During the first "team slump" only Hill and Wells 
(of the expected contributers) were completely invisible, that would make me think, 
as a knee-jerk reaction, that that first slump really was a matter of freakishly bad 
luck when  it came to driving in runners, rather than an overall offensive crash. Of 
course, Barajas and Stewart and Eckstien  having non-productive at bats was a factor 
too.

However, During the second slump:
Overbay crashed
Hill was out
Rolen crashed
Rios was flirting with .700
Wells likewise
Stairs was worse
And Stewart, in a small sample, was useless. Only Barajas did well.

So, one man's opinion, the first slump was a fluke, of the sort any team might have.

But the first three weeks of June killed the season. 
For the sake of redundancy, here's that line from each hitter stacked together:

 63   7  13  3  1  1   7  11   0  13   0   0   1   7   1  0  .206  .320  .333  .653
 65   5  13  2  0  1   4   8   0  10   3   0   0   4   0  0  .200  .316  .277  .593
 70  10  20  6  0  0   4   5   0  14   0   0   1   2   3  2  .286  .329  .371  .700
 53   7  15  2  0  2   4   0   0   7   0   0   2   3   1  0  .283  .273  .434  .707
 48   7   9  2  0  2  10   7   0  14   1   0   0   1   1  0  .188  .304  .354  .658
 59   7  17  5  0  2   8   4   0  11   2   0   0   1   0  0  .288  .354  .475  .829
 22   1   1  0  0  0   0   4   0   2   0   0   0   0   0  0  .045  .192  .045  .237

Finally, just for point of reference, the team pitching lines for the five periods 
I looked at:

127    118   52   51   45   93  13   3.61   534   7   4   0  .249  .321  .406  .727 
125.1  126   60   54   50   99   8   3.88   539   0   7   2  .262  .328  .391  .719 
263    203   91   85   75  234  19   2.91  1060  13   9   1  .211  .275  .326  .601
168.2  187   91   85   59  132  26   4.54   747   9   2   0  .280  .345  .450  .795
415.2  389  189  169  134  337  43   3.66  1747  24  15   1  .247  .314  .395  .709

I don't have to point out to you what line is not like the others.

Food for thought, or time waster, it interested me anyway.

TamRa - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 05:33 AM EDT (#190818) #

Of course they haven't hit better than May. Because my post has nothing to do with stats--except for the final results.

I have argued (not on this site) that this team is poor offensively. Thus, I didn't expect them to greatly outproduce Gibbon's offensively. Rather, I expected them to produce AT THE RIGHT TIME; at least enough to win more.

Thing is, precentage wise the won more in May than they have under Gaston. It would certainly SEEM that overal stats, and not just "at the right time" stats correlated with impressive winning records in both cases.

In fact, there is an obvious and glaring correlation between OVERALL STATS and periods of good, or bad, results in the won-loss column.

If you look at the Angels and Minnesota the only difference between what they do offensively and what we do is they hit in the clutch. Why is that? They do the little things that can't be quantified statswise. Moving runners over, having more speed, and better overall power-talent (from the left side) matters in a sweepover effect on the lineup. That's why they are "Pythagorean mysteries"

This is, in a vacuum, a perfectly valid hypothesis and one worthy of serious consideration. But it would be much more complelling IF there were no obvious correlation between the OVERALL stats and the slumps.
But there is.
In point of fact, when the Jays are hitting well OVERALL, somehow, mysteriously, they do well in the things you describe - at least, there run production and winning precentage indicate they do at least to the same extent that they prove your argument in relation to the Twins and Angels. Likewise, when the Jays are hitting poorly OVERALL then, shocker of shockers, they also don't do the "little things" you refer to well.

Is that a coincidence? Seriously?

That is a result of a manager showing confidence in a group of players getting the job done.

All this "they like Cito" and "Cito respects them" stuff is just post-hoc rationalization. I've already conceeded that Gibbons losing his job looks to have been a valid move. So there's no big debate there. And it's no stretch to say that his decision making might have had something to do with the in game production events you refer to. But the numbers tell the tale perfectly well, when the team was hitting at a more or less league average pace, it won at a .600 or better level, when it wasn't, it stunk. I don't see why one needs to look for "intangible" and unquantifiable explanations for something that is so easily obvious.

As for your player-by-player rationalizations, the numbers suggest that Cito and/or his staff have:

Fixed Rios
MAYBE been what Lind needed (no way to prove what he would have done long term under Gibbons on this last recall)
Turned McDonald from a totally useless bat into just an very bad one.

That's it. The very mild fluctuations in Wells and Overbay are so marginal as to be a normal variation over the course of a season. No one else cited in the OP has the kind of swing that would point credit to Cito (albeit Barajas has swung downward).

By the way, by your argument, wouldn't you have to explain why the ERA of Listch, marcum, and McGowan went up so much under Cito? Certainly it can't be quantifiable things like the effect of injuries or mechanics, surely it must be because they have no confidence since Cito took over, right?

Or does that only work for hitters?

Magpie - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 07:12 AM EDT (#190823) #

Well, I'll point out one striking change - they hit into 83 DPs in 74 games with Gibbons in charge, a pace that would have set a new league record. And they were absolutely killing the offense. Since the switch, they've hit into 35 in 50 games.

Can't explain why, mind you. It may simply be Random Chance, and Gibbons got the short end of the stick. I certainly haven't noticed Gaston making a special effort to avoid the DP. He doesn't start the runners as often (which I think Gibbons was doing in a desperate bid to avoid the GDPs), and Gaston never did like bunting very much (Gibbons went back and forth on it.)

Magpie - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 07:20 AM EDT (#190824) #

27/29 stealing bases?! Am I reading that right?

Yeah, that's good even for a Cito Gaston team. All of his Blue Jays teams had a terrific SB pct - the worst by a fair margin would have been the 1990 team, which more or less broke even (111 of 163, 68%). Most of his teams stole successfully 75-80% of the time. The guys who can steal bases, steal bases. No one is allowed.

Dave Till - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 07:39 AM EDT (#190825) #

What Cito has done, IMHO:

Stopped using the hit and run. He doesn't like it. This is why the stolen base percentage has gone up - there aren't any caught stealings after busted hit and runs. Plus, as Magpie says, he only lets the really fast guys run.
Put Adam Lind in left field and kept him there, batting him lower in the order at first to let him get more comfortable.
Found an eighth-inning guy (Downs), and a ninth-inning guy (Ryan), and used everybody else to fill in the gaps as needed. He'll have to improvise while Downs is, er, down. He doesn't like to switch pitchers as often as Gibbons did (and nowhere near as often as Tosca did).
Gotten the hitters to start attacking the ball a bit more. That's what he's always done. Of course, he's not going to get great results, as this isn't a particularly good group of hitters. But they're not trying to work the count as much any more - which means fewer room-service DP ground balls with two strikes on them.
Worked Roy Halladay too hard in that one outing. It doesn't look like it hurt Doc, but 130 pitches was way too many. If he keeps doing that, he'll undo all the good he's doing elsewhere.

I think you have to give Cito a lot of credit. Getting this team to play .580 ball is an impressive achievement. As Joe Morgan once wrote, it's scandalous that no one (other than the Jays) has ever given Cito a chance to manage. The Jays have been to the post-season five times in their history; Cito managed four of those teams, and was the hitting coach for the fifth.

AWeb - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 07:51 AM EDT (#190826) #

If you look at the Angels and Minnesota the only difference between what they do offensively and what we do is they hit in the clutch. Why is that? They do the little things that can't be quantified statswise. Moving runners over, having more speed, and better overall power-talent (from the left side) matters in a sweepover effect on the lineup. That's why they are "Pythagorean mysteries"

It's a new one to me that having better power from the left side would somehow make a team outperform their expected W-L record. The Angels and Twins are outperforming expectations for several very quatifiable reasons, the most important of which is probably hitting with runners on. Minnesota is still hitting .301 with runners on base, LA is at .292. With no one on, they are at .262 and .246 respectively. It's not moving runners over that is costing Toronto runs, it's not getting the basehit to score them. Minnesota certainly isn't noticably faster than Toronto, both teams being pretty average speed-wise.

There are also the more difficult to quantify reasons, especially for the Angels and their ridiculous outperformance of Pythagoras. Arizona ended up +11 (pythagoras) last year, this year with almost the same team and management, they are at -2. Seattle was +8 last year, -5 this year. LAA was +4, this year +9. Minnesota was 0 last year, +3 this year. Toronto has been more consistent than most in underperforming in recent years, but it's still largely luck at that point. Basic team skills have also been sub-playoff level, of course.

robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 09:20 AM EDT (#190829) #

If they play .580 ball for the rest of this season, they'll finish with 86 wins in what will officially be a Highly Disappointing Season.

Not to me.

John Northey - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 09:34 AM EDT (#190831) #

I think the big disappointment would be in how this year saw an opening in the Red Sox/Yankee 1/2 punch and the Rays took the opening rather than the Jays. Plus the old 'they played 580 ball for Cito, if he was here all year they'd have won 94 and might have made the playoffs' argument (a silly one, but a feeling you can't help but have at times).

High 80's low 90's was my thoughts for this team pre-season, and they still have a shot at that on the low end. The breaks just were not there for them ala how the Angels and Rays have had a fair amount of good fortune (ie: winning more than runs for/against suggest you should).

robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 09:42 AM EDT (#190832) #

If you look at the Angels and Minnesota the only difference between what they do offensively and what we do is they hit in the clutch.

Have you watched these teams play regularly this season? I have. These teams don't ground into double plays like the Jays do and they generally run the bases better.

GIDP: Toronto 118, Angels 110, Minnesota 97

Toronto is second in the league is GIDP, only 1 behind the Yankees, despite having an OBP 5 points below league average (.332 versus .337). Minnesota doesn't hit homeruns, but the Angels do - 119 versus the Jays' 85 (league average is 121).

In terms of slugging percentage, the Jays are solidly in the bottom four: Oakland .367, Seatlle .385, Toronto .385, KC .386. The 5th worst is the Angels at .407.

robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 09:51 AM EDT (#190833) #

I will add that hitting with "runners in scoring position" is very far from synonymous with "hitting in the clutch". If you are up by 5 runs late in the game, who cares if you get four straight hits with runners in scoring position.

China fan - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 10:27 AM EDT (#190835) #

I hate to interrupt this fascinating discussion, but I notice that absolutely nobody at Batters Box has made the slightest comment on the Olympic baseball tournament and I wonder if anyone cares about Olympic baseball any more. Probably not -- which is why it will be eliminated from the Olympics after this year -- which is a great pity. I must say that I find it very enjoyable to sit in the stands and watch high-calibre baseball here in Beijing. It's always intriguing to watch the Cubans, for example, and to speculate on which members of their awesome-looking team could be major-league ready if they were to defect today. It's also been interesting to get one last look at Rheal Cormier and Stubby Clapp before they disappear from the Canadian baseball scene. It's been frustrating to see the Canadians losing a whole string of close-fought one-run games that they could have won. And finally, it's been sad to think of how the Jays managed to destroy the final hopes of the Canadian team by recalling Scott Richmond at absolutely the worst possible moment -- and then sending him back to the minors when it's too late for him to help Canada any more. In Saturday's game against the USA, for example, someone like Richmond could have made all the difference in the world. Canada's pitching collapsed in the fourth inning against an eminently beatable American team. Richmond, I suspect, would have lasted longer.

Chuck - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 10:47 AM EDT (#190837) #

I wonder if anyone cares about Olympic baseball any more

Any more?

AWeb - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 10:55 AM EDT (#190838) #

Grounding into double plays a lot means the team isn't getting hits with runners on, it's all part of the same problem. Certainly part of Toronto's problem has been the DP, but when you get a decent amount of runners to first base (with a fair number of walks and low slugging, Toronto is managing that), and then continually fail to get a hit, double plays happen.

I don't know where to find it, but I'd like to see Double Play % - that is, "conversion" in the standard double play situations (force out available at two bases at least, 0 or 1 outs). This misses a few DPs - line outs, strike out/throw out), but I don't think the "non-standard" DPs have been the problem. Is Toronto hitting into more DPs than you would expect given their opportunities? That's the important question to me.

mathesond - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 11:06 AM EDT (#190839) #

I wonder if anyone cares about Olympic baseball any more

For what it's worth, I don't care about it any less than I did

China fan - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 11:15 AM EDT (#190840) #

I see. So, just the usual sarcasm, then.

John Northey - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 11:50 AM EDT (#190841) #

I don't think Richmond would've been the difference between a medal or 5th place (the best Canada can hope for now). What they needed is some of the Angels magic - the ability to win 1 run games - rather than the luck of Atlanta (they are 6-24 in 1 run games). Given only Japan has allowed fewer runs than Canada after 5 of the 7 games it is a safe bet that pitching is not the killer. So another top hitter would've done far more than another pitcher, as the Jays (18-24 in 1 run games despite having what many thought was needed, tons of pitching including a strong pen) have shown all too well at times this year.

Going into the Olympics most would agree the rankings were Japan (who are using their top pros other than the handful in the majors), Cuba (using all their best), USA (far more depth than Canada). Canada landed in the next group with South Korea as possible medal contenders if things broke right. Taiwan is a decent team, but not medal contenders while China and the Netherlands are there as cannon fodder.

Team Canada has so far been able to only beat China and will probably beat the Netherlands by a lopsided score as well before losing a one run 'rub salt into the wounds' game against Taiwan.

FYI: Canada results so far...
10-0 win over China (making us think there was an offense here)
6-7 loss to Cuba (2 errors costing at least one run)
0-1 loss to South Korea (just 5 hits)
4-5 loss to the USA (out hit the states 10 to 9)
0-1 loss to Japan (2 hits)

Richmond might have made a difference if he started vs Cuba or the USA, but scoring 0 runs in two games (Korea and Japan) just kills you. As to the 'collapse' in the 4th vs the States, just 2 runs scored that inning - hardly a collapse. The 2 runs in the 7th was the difference, shifting from a 4-3 lead to a 5-4 loss. For Richmond to have been the difference maker there he'd have had to go at least 6 innings allowing 3 or fewer runs, or 7+ allowing 3 or fewer to lock in a win. I'm sure Richmond would be the first to say that was no guarantee.

Oh, btw, I do enjoy Olympic baseball to some degree, but it means little without major league involvement. Much like the Olympics for hockey pre-NHL and the like. In the spring we get to see the best of Canada vs the best of everyone else and to me that means far more than Olympic baseball does. To me the real shame is the softball results as the women were off to a great start, 3-0, then lost 3 in a row. That is a tournament with the best vs the best and that is what I find most interesting, and at least the women still have a medal shot.

christaylor - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:05 PM EDT (#190842) #

" I expected them to produce AT THE RIGHT TIME; at least enough to win more."

I guess you mean you expect them to be "clutch"? How is Cito supposed to influence something which analysis suggests is luck?

"Why is that? They do the little things that can't be quantified statswise. Moving runners over, having more speed, and better overall power"

You say that these things can't be quantified, but you list things that can all be measured and have been measured.

"Look at Tampa's offence right now with their two main weapons on the DL--they are still scoring like they never left--you know why? They have confidence in each other. They don't beat themselves. Are we to say they are just "lucky"? I doubt it. "

Toronto has scored 4.33 R/G and that's good for 11th in the league. Terrible right? Your high flying Tampa offense has score 4.59 R/G which is good for 10th in the league. Yes, the difference between TB and the Jays is just luck. The difference in the two teams offensive output isn't significantly different.

Also how do you know the Rays have confidence in each other? Perhaps they hate each other. Perhaps each player thinks every other stinks. You're just using a term that is short hand for "winning". Reverse TB's luck? Then they're young, green and uncertain... you explanations are "ad hoc" and pretty worthless, about as worthless as saying the team wins because they dropped the word devil and now the players aren't constantly thinking satanic thoughts.

"Scutaro - playing like he did before Rolen got all his starts (undeserved)"

This makes no sense. Rolen was at the ASB the 2nd most valuable 3B in the AL taking into account offense and defense. Then his shoulder started to seize up. Scutaro never deserves to start ahead of Rolen.

"assisted in Lind's improvement.(obvious)"

If you mean Cito started to write his name in the line-up... sure. Other than that Cito has had zero effect on Lind.

"Mcdonald's improvement(pulling the ball)"

Sample size. Remember last year when J-Mac was hitting about .450 and then whipped off a 1 for 30. Thinking that J-Mac has "turned a corner" or "improved" just lacks common sense. The man is a terrible hitter and even terrible hitters can look great for short stretches.

"The only player who Cito hasn't affected is Barajas"

Uhh... why? Because his OPS has gone down .200 points since Gaston took over and he doesn't fit your "Cito gives his players confidence theory"? He should be a prime example, Cito has "shown confidence" in him by playing him over the better catcher, Zaun.

I hate lazy, meaningless drivel that passes for "analysis"... just because you say confidence (or consistent) a lot and your "folk baseball" theory thinks this is an important cause of success doesn't make it true. Of all the problems that Gibby had his re-ordering of the line-up certainly wasn't one of them. In fact, he could have randomly picked the line-up out of a hat each game and it wouldn't have made much of a difference (see: The Book).

All of the evidence is that this team isn't appreciably different from the one we saw under Gibbons. The offense when good, has been just as good as under Gibbons and when bad (see the last CLE series) has been just as bad. I am not a fan of Gibbons, but you're slagging him for no reason. Nobody wanted to play for him? Did you even see the post-firing interviews with Stairs, Rolen, et al? The man was well liked. The problem was the team just couldn't hit because this is not a highly talented offense when healthy and producing at reasonable levels based on career norms. That's it, that's all, no sense in spinning cockamamie excuses like you have.

jeff mcl - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:08 PM EDT (#190843) #

Team Canada was handcuffed by never having more than one right-handed hitter in the lineup at any given time when they were going to face a string of lefty starters. Agreed, however, that Richmond would've helped them beat either Cuba or USA.

Thomas - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:20 PM EDT (#190844) #

If you mean Cito started to write his name in the line-up... sure. Other than that Cito has had zero effect on Lind.

How do you know that? I'll provide the answer: You don't. I'm not going to give Cito all the credit for Lind's recent success, as Lind has been a very good hitter throughout his minor league career. However, Cito and Tenace have talked a lot to Lind and this is evident in both their statements and some TV shots during the broadcasts. I don't think you can automatically dismiss Cito's influence on Lind, either. Just as it's foolish to say Cito's made Lind the hitter he is, it's almost as foolish to say he's had 'zero effect' on Lind.

John Northey - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:23 PM EDT (#190846) #

One other Olympic thought - if Richmond helped Canada beat...
Cuba - new standings would be Korea 5-0, Cuba 4-1, Japan 3-2, USA 3-2, Canada 2-3, ... thus giving Canada a shot if they win both games remaining (vs Netherlands and Taiwan) and factoring in that Japan plays the States on the final day plus Japan plays China [auto win] while the US plays Taiwan [not auto but very likely a US win] and have a better runs for/against than either Japan or the US (whoever loses their game).
Canada is +6 right now and if they beat Cuba they'd be +8 (at least). The US is +14 while Japan is +8.

USA - new standings would be Korea 5-0, Cuba 5-0, Japan 3-2, USA 2-3, Canada 2-3 which would put the US in a 'must win' situation vs Japan and Canada would have a great shot at making the medal round with a second game vs the 3 teams that beat them earlier (would play two of them and have to win at least one to get a medal).
Canada is +6 right now and if they beat USA they'd be +8 (at least). The US is +14 and would adjust to +12 or worse while Japan is +8.

In both cases Canada would be losing the tiebreaker with the USA at this stage and feel the need to pound the crap out of the Netherlands.

So, yes, Richmond could've made the difference if he pitched extremely well vs the USA or well vs Cuba (no idea which he'd have faced, if either). Of if he had a mediocre/bad start for whatever reason we'd be looking at the exact same situation. The only lock would've been if he could've lasted 7+ innings allowing 3 or fewer runs vs the USA and I sure wouldn't have bet my house on that one.

robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:26 PM EDT (#190847) #

Going into the Olympics most would agree the rankings were Japan (who are using their top pros other than the handful in the majors), Cuba (using all their best), USA (far more depth than Canada). Canada landed in the next group with South Korea as possible medal contenders if things broke right. Taiwan is a decent team, but not medal contenders while China and the Netherlands are there as cannon fodder.

Kendry Morales, Yuni Betancourt, Jose Contreras and Alexi Ramirez would like a word with you. I'd add Livan, but ... he's probably not good enough to make their team.

The reason we don't care much about Olympic baseball (and part of the reason that they are dropping baseball) is that the best players have never gone to play there. This is why there was, and will be again in 2009, great excitement about the World Baseball Classic.

robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#190848) #

The whole Richmond situation reeks of the Jays not wanting him to go to China. Not to specifically hurt Canada's chances, but to protect him from whatever Terry Puhl and/or the totalitarian state might do to him (an irrational fear?, most probably, but many North Americans have a deep distrust of China). I have no proof obviously, but if the guy was American and not slated to go over there, I don't think he would have been called up when he was.

Chuck - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:39 PM EDT (#190849) #

For my tastes, Olympic baseball is akin to the Spengler Cup rather than Olympic hockey or basketball. The WBC has totally marginalized Olympic baseball.

christaylor - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:41 PM EDT (#190850) #

I can't see how any team that employs Cormier and Clapp be called "high-calibre".

I can't stand the Olympics because of the hypocrisy around drugs (they make the most noise against it, but everyone knows most participants use - I thought the Economist had it right this month, let the athlete take anything safe as long as they declare it) and money (the athletes live in poverty while the IOC rakes in millions plus significant bribes).

On baseball, with MLB we get to watch high-quality international baseball all the time. I doubt very many of those Cubans would be stars in MLB, they might make it, but look amazing because they play below AA competition.

Lastly, I can't stand the noise made around Phelps and his 8 medals. He's played two sports. Individual and team swimming. His various medals would be awarding Cy Youngs for a fastball, curveball, slider, etc.

The Olympics could just disappear and I'd be happy. Not that I don't like the various sports, just that it is so broken as an event that it needs a total overhaul. Eliminating the "baseball" it has as part of it is a good first step.

John Northey - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:45 PM EDT (#190851) #

Manager's effects on players is one of the great missing areas of baseball statistical research. It was fielding but many great measures exist now for that, and with pitchf/x we have an amazing amount of potential information on pitchers that should help analysis of them move up to a whole new level. However, managers are another ballgame.

What do we have for managers? We can measure how many players become full timers under them, if older players improve, if pitchers arms fall off, but how to really tell what effect they have to a degree that would allow predictions of how valuable Cito Gaston is vs. John Gibbons vs. Tony LaRussa vs. Dusty Baker?

Baseball-Reference has W-L records and playoff appearances. Some sites have runs for/against vs expected (ie: show if their teams do better than they should, which had happened a lot for Baker early on). Some have expected W-L based on the past seasons record and an assumption that all teams work their ways to 500. Some have manager of the year voting as well (Cito was getting votes in all of his first 5 years out of his total of 9 seasons - LaRussa was voted for in 15 of his 29 years for comparison).

What I'd love is for someone to find a strong way of measuring a managers effect on the pitching staff, the offense, the defense, injuries, and overall on a team. Sadly, there are so many factors there (from freak injuries to players a GM forces on a manager to regular year to year fluctuations players have) I don't know how this can be done to a degree that would seperate the great from the not so great managers.

Rich - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:49 PM EDT (#190852) #

Canada is always going to struggle against good competition so long as its lineup is so heavily left-handed. Look at the likely starters for next year's WBC - Bay and Martin are the only right-handed hitters. If they wind up facing the likes of Kazmir, Santana, or Liriano in consecutive games it's going to be very, very tough to score runs. You have to figure the order's going to include Morneau, Votto, Teahan, and other lefties.

Sure the Olympics are a second-rate baseball competition, but I'd still like to see Canada do well. I'd rather we won a medal in baseball, which millions of Canadians watch and love, than in many of the other Olympic sports that very few Canucks care about all. Seeing the team lose 4 straight one-run games is disappointing.

Brian W - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:53 PM EDT (#190853) #

Canada's problem in the Olympics has been the same as it always is: no right-handed hitters. Any team that can find a couple of decent lefties to put on the mound can shut down our offense. Historically there are very few right-handed hitters coming out of Canada (hockey background is the most common explanation). We tend to have a lot of players that throw the ball right-handed but hit left. Before the last Olympics I actually did a guest article here at the Batter's Box analyzing this problem. It's probably still in the archives somewhere.

As to whether or not I care about Olympic baseball: I do, but the 14 hour time difference makes it very difficult to make it worthwhile to stay up to watch a game that is unlikely to matter. If I believed Canada would make the playoffs I might make the effort like I did for the last Olympics (I remember watching the bronze medal game at some ridiculous time of the night).

China fan - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:54 PM EDT (#190854) #

There's another reason to care about the Olympics: some of the greatest potential stars of the future are playing in Beijing this week. I'm talking about players like the Japanese pitcher Yu Darvish (who is tearing up the Japanese league at the age of 21 and is seen as a stronger major-leaguer than Dice-K in the future) or the Canadian hitter Brett Lawrie, a first-round draft pick who we were all discussing at draft time. Not to mention a raft of Korean and Taiwanese players with major-league potential, and Cubans who could play in the majors if they defect. If these guys were playing in the North American minor leagues, they would be recognized as top prospects and they would be hugely discussed and debated here. But because they are overseas in a funny little Olympic thing, most people are uninterested.

I'll be a little provocative here and suggest a few reasons why some Bauxites are responding with sarcasm about the Olympic baseball, rather than interest in it: 1) nobody has heard of the Japanese, Koreans, Cubans and Taiwanese, and they've got funny-sounding names that we can't easily pronounce; 2) the Chinese time zone is 12 hours ahead of EDT, so most of us can't watch it live; 3) it's hard to find the boxscores or the stats on the Internet, so we can't debate it like something that is catalogued in Baseball Reference. But all of the above reasons boil down to one thing: laziness, rather than logic.

christaylor - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:58 PM EDT (#190855) #

Let me clarify, I mean zero observable effect on Lind's hitting. His swing and stance look the same. It is nice that Lind is being talked to, but I'm sure Gibbons and Denbo talk to him. I'm sure Mickey Brantley talked to him too.

Sure I don't know that there's been exactly zero effect on Lind but even the best hitting coaches have very little effect and often no measurable effect on hitters. Even pitching coaches, with the greater role they play have no great effect (see a nice study on Mazzone). So with that, yes, I am definitely comfortable being of the opinion that Lind is as he would be without Cito... but we'll never know because the team saw fit to let him languish in AAA to start the season (which is another reason why I think there's been no effect, he's continued what he's done at AAA).

Anyway, point taken, but I disagree that the opinion is anywhere near as foolish as giving CIto the credit for Lind. No effect, zero effect, is just the null hypothesis...which is usally the safer bet unless there's good evidence to the contrary.

John Northey - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:59 PM EDT (#190856) #

Heh. Swimming makes me laugh this time. Canada came in 6th in one event while breaking the old world record iirc. The new suits, a deeper pool, and who knows what else has made old records and standards for swimming irrelevant. It would be like baseball moving the pitchers mound in from 60'6" to 50'5" then bragging about the amazing pitching performances, or allowing hitters to use metal bats and talking about the amazing home runs being hit. It is a joke.

Would many Cubans make the majors if they were allowed to? Some would, some wouldn't. The WBC showed us that the Cubans were certainly a good team vs MLB All-Stars as were the Japanese.

As to the medals for best fastball, longest home run, etc. that might have been the way to make baseball 'Olympic worthy'. The Olympics are, generally, the ADD games. The biggest events tend to be very short (100 metre dash is done in under 10 seconds) and few last more than the time between commercial breaks (once they cut down to the final groups that is). Major team sports such as baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer really don't belong there as most fans prefer their local teams and the World Cup type tournaments their sports have. As to baseball being removed, I wonder about a sporting event where shooting, trampoline, BMX (??), beach volleyball and various other 'sports' are key to them.

Dan Daoust - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 12:59 PM EDT (#190857) #

China fan, this site is surely the best forum available for sincere and serious Blue Jays analysis. I come here for my health food after I've splurged on drunkjaysfans, thesouthpaw, taoofsteib and deadspin. In light of all the attention this site pays to the minors, it probably deserves the benefit of the doubt if it doesn't pay as much attention to the Olympics.

christaylor - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:03 PM EDT (#190858) #

That's a good point. If JP and came out and said "I don't want Puhl to burn out Richmond's arm." I would support his decision entirely. Richmond looks like he could be a useful 6-7th starter option going into next year. That's much more important to me than to help a team that didn't have a good shot at a medal.

robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:06 PM EDT (#190859) #

I can't stand the Olympics because of the hypocrisy around drugs (they make the most noise against it, but everyone knows most participants use - I thought the Economist had it right this month, let the athlete take anything safe as long as they declare it) and money (the athletes live in poverty while the IOC rakes in millions plus significant bribes).

The Olympic sports have the most stringent drug testing in the world. Baseball's efforts to combat drug use don't even come close to what the IOC has done. In the 80s and 90s it wasn't hard to get away with stuff, but nowadays it isn't easy for an athlete to get away with doping over the long term (some will of course). I'm curious about your "everyone knows most participants use" statement - this trikes me as needlessly pessimistic and knee-jerk. Legal training methods are very advanced right now, which lessens the need to cheat. Why? Because if you can gain 98% in performance using legal means as compared to all out cheating, the reward to risk ratio shrinks to the point where it doesn't make rational sense to cheat. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the level of doping in IOC sports right now is far far less than was the case in the 80s.

Medal-winning athletes, as a general rule, become wealthy. Winning an Olympic medal opens up all kinds of doors to you, especially in countries that don't win many. In many cases they become national heroes. If this weren't the case, why would these people put themselves through hell in pursuit of Olympic glory? Do you really think they are all just naive slaves?

Sorry for the off-topic. but these statements needed to be addressed.

Anders - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#190860) #

1) nobody has heard of the Japanese, Koreans, Cubans and Taiwanese, and they've got funny-sounding names that we can't easily pronounce; 2) the Chinese time zone is 12 hours ahead of EDT, so most of us can't watch it live; 3) it's hard to find the boxscores or the stats on the Internet, so we can't debate it like something that is catalogued in Baseball Reference. But all of the above reasons boil down to one thing: laziness, rather than logic.

1) I really doubt racism is the reason why most people here aren't huge Olympic baseball fans
2) Many people can't stay up to watch the Jays play west coast games because they start at 10 am. Canada's next game is starts at 11.30 pm, and it generally isn't even available in its entirety on broadcast tv here - you have to watch on CBC's website.
3) You can find the boxscores online, just like you can find the boxscores for Fisher Cats games. We don't really have extended debates on how Brian Dopirak got that hit against Yoslan Herrera last night either.

If basketball and hockey were in the Olympics using minor league players I'm sure few would care as much as they do now. Do you think ESPN would devote a single minute of coverage to USA Basketball if the 'Dream Team' was a bunch of college sophmores? ESPN barely mentions the baseball as it is, so its not like everyone at the box secretly hates international baseball - its just not relevant. International baseball now has a marquee event where we can see the best of the best, and other than generally well wishing Canada in all sporting endeavors, I could really care less about watching a bunch of AA/AAA (or AAAA in the case of the Japanese team) players compete against each other, while having to stay up until 3 to be able to do so. The quality of the play is the important thing here.

robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:15 PM EDT (#190861) #

No effect, zero effect, is just the null hypothesis...which is usally the safer bet unless there's good evidence to the contrary.

Reminds me of this type of reasoning: the population of sentient being density of the universe is zero because, while there are a finite number of sentient beings in the universe, the volume of the universe is infinite by comparison. So if population density is zero, the actual population is zero as well. Therefore, there are no sentient beings in the universe.

China fan - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:20 PM EDT (#190862) #

I said nothing about racism, and I have the greatest respect for Batter's Box, which is why I read it religiously. I'm merely suggesting that a lot of us don't follow the best players in Asia (for example) because it takes a bit more effort to learn their complicated names and to understand their major-league potential. I'm only suggesting that Batter's Box -- as excellent a forum as it already is -- would be stronger and wiser if it occasionally broadened its horizons outside North America. If we did, for example, we wouldn't make the elementary error of thinking that Brian Dopirak can be compared to Yu Darvish. Or that Japan's top players could be dismissed as "AAAA" material.

robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:26 PM EDT (#190863) #

Major team sports such as baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer really don't belong there as most fans prefer their local teams and the World Cup type tournaments their sports have.

Olympic hockey and basketball have the best players competing and in both cases there are no nation versus nation competitions of higher stature. My pet desire is to remove all the team sports from the Olympic games and create a third Olympics, just for team sports. It would contain all the existing Olympic team sports plus cricket and rugby, provided the best players in the world are allowed to compete (this might keep men's soccer and baseball out). I'd also like to get rid of every sport that relies heavily on subjective judging (including boxing, diving, gymnastics, figure skating), but I realize these sports tend to be popular with spectators and TV viewers so it's not going to happen.

robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:37 PM EDT (#190864) #

If we did, for example, we wouldn't make the elementary error of thinking that Brian Dopirak can be compared to Yu Darvish. Or that Japan's top players could be dismissed as "AAAA" material.

Certainly, knowledgeable fans understand that the best Japanese players are of major league quality. They have proven this time and time again. But if you put the best Japanese team in the majors for a season, I think they would play below .400, which is what leads many to apply the "AAAA" moniker. The reason for this is that once you move past the 3 or 4 best players on a team, the depth of a major league team is far superior to what you'd find in Japan.

Also, we must remember that this site started out with the stated intent of being a view of baseball from a Canadian perspective. De facto it has been 95% Blue Jays focused, almost from it's inception. But we can't be all things to all baseball fans. Asian baseball deserves attention, but it should come from people who watch it day in and day out. We aren't in a position to do that here.

I'm sure there is probably something similar to a Japanese baseball version of "Batter's Box" which focuses on the JPLs. However, it is probably not written in English.

John Northey - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:40 PM EDT (#190865) #

robertdudek - couldn't agree more. I don't get some of the choices for sports for the Olympics - soccer is in but cricket is out, shooting is in but golf is not. They claimed they wanted to reduce judged sports then added in trampoline and team diving.

I figure we'll see more World Cup type things (baseball, soccer, and cricket all have successful ones while hockey's died off it seems and basketball has yet to do a real one) as time goes by for the team sports and all of them will shrink at the Olympics on their own.

As to the comparison of, say, Japanese league players to MLB - I love reading some of those articles elsewhere but don't have the time or energy to dig into it enough to write an article. If someone (such as Chinafan) wants to write articles on international baseball for Batter's Box I think I can safely say we'd all love to see it. Just send it to Matthew and he'll take care of it (assuming it is well written of course). See the 'FAQ' section at the top of the page for more details.

Mike D - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#190866) #

As is so often the case, I agree with just about everything Robert says.

And not to pile on Robert's dead-on (and fairly devastating) retorts, but I will note that the same poster has made the following two statements in the same thread:

I hate lazy, meaningless drivel that passes for "analysis"...

Sure I don't know that there's been exactly zero effect on Lind but even the best hitting coaches have very little effect and often no measurable effect on hitters.

Irony just rules sometimes.

TamRa - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 02:16 PM EDT (#190868) #

As a point of order, I should note that all the stats I quoted last night did not include yesterday's offensive outburst in Boston.

China fan - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 02:23 PM EDT (#190870) #

John Northey, you make some very reasonable points and I thank you for the suggestion. My main point is this: Asian and Cuban baseball is a rather obscure and mysterious world for most of us, but the Olympics (and the World Baseball Classic) offers an easy window to allow us a glimpse into those unfamiliar baseball hotbeds. So if people dismiss the Olympics and don't bother to check it out, they are missing a very accessible way of learning about the sources of some of baseball's most exciting young talent. I agree that it's difficult to follow Japanese or Korean baseball if you don't live in those countries -- but that's all the more reason why we should take advantage of a rare opportunity to see the best of Asia's emerging stars in competition with some recognizable Canadian and American players.

China fan - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#190871) #

And I agree also with Robert's points on this subject too.

China fan - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#190874) #

For what it's worth, all of the Olympic baseball boxscores are available at this website.

Unfortunately it doesn't appear to show the cumulative stats for each player in this tournament.

John Northey - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 02:41 PM EDT (#190877) #

Fun stuff and a great way to avoid work (geez am I behind).

Checking the Jays stats for a minute...
100+ OPS+ after yesterday: Lind 127, Overbay 107, Wells 107, Rios 106, Inglett 104, Rolen 100. Plus Luna's 436 by going 1 for 1.

Our sub 100 OPS+ guys include our DH (a prime hitting slot manned by Stairs at 96), our most used utility guy (Scutaro at 81), and people in positions not expected to hit well (CA, 2B, SS). Of course, ignoring the ugliness of the non-big 3 outfielders (Mench 71, Stewart 69, Wilkerson 67).

So for the poor offense we do have hope. Mench/Stewart/Wilkerson and the like will be no more than 4th or 5th outfielders here next year with the big 3 plus Snider in AAA manning the positions with Scutaro/Inglett probably ahead of those guys as backups anyways. CA and SS will suck royally next year most likely (Barajas/Diaz are not going to be compared to Mike Piazza, nor McDonald/Scutaro to A-Rod). Second base should recover if Hill is healthy or if Campbell can continue his hitting from AA into the majors.

FYI: in 2007 we had 5 over 100 (Stairs, Thomas, Rios, Glaus at 120+ plus Hill's 107) plus 2 of the 10 AB or less guys vs this years 6 (but just one over 120) plus 1 sub 10 AB guy.

Brian W - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#190880) #

For cumulative stats for the Olympic baseball, go to this site and choose Cumulative Statistics. Incidentally Canada as a team is hitting .218 with a .628 OPS. But the pitching is good.

Of course, those numbers are still better than our softball team which made the playoffs. They're hitting .217 with a .549 OPS.

Chuck - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:11 PM EDT (#190882) #

Matt LaPorta's Olympic experience...

uglyone - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:18 PM EDT (#190884) #

Given that even under Gibbons, this team's offense was a freakish statistical anomaly, hitting decent overall but on pace for a record-smashingly awful performance with RISP, maybe it's best to just look at the most basic team stats - Team Record, and Runs For / Runs Against.

50 games under Gaston:

Record: 29-21 - .580w% (94-win pace)

Runs For: 240 - 4.8r/g (778-run pace)
Runs Against: 200 - 4.0/g (648-run pace)
Runs Differential: +40 - +0.8/g (+130-run pace)

74 games under Gibbons:

Record: 35-39 - .473w% (77-win pace)

Runs For: 297 - 4.0/g (650-run pace)
Runs Against: 287 - 3.9/g (628-run pace)
Runs Differential: +10 - +0.1/g (+22-run pace)

If we roughly break down the highest scoring teams as around 5.5r/g, and the lowest scoring teams at around 4.0r/g, and conversely the best pitching teams allowing around 4.0r/g, and the worst around 5.5/g, then simply speaking the team under Cito is the team I expected to see all year - a team with top-notch pitching and defense, and with solidly average offense.

That's the team I thought we'd have this year, and that's the team I thought could challenge for 90-95 wins and a playoff spot this year.

That team we saw under Gibbons simply didn't make any sense. Some (like WIlner) might want to argue that this is just the numbers balancing out, but I think we clearly witnessed, both this year and last year, a team which was underperforming significantly offensively......and when there's such a clear difference over a substantial sample after a managing change, I think it's pretty tough to ignore reality, and claim that manager had zero influence on the situation.

John Northey - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#190886) #

Thanks for the link Brian.

I'd say what has killed team Canada isn't the lack of Richmond but having a coach leading off - good ol' Stubby Clapp is hitting 200/261/200 out of the leadoff hole (1 of his 4 hits and his only walk was vs China in the blowout). Scott Thorman, I hate to say (as I'm from Cambridge too), has been a drag as well hitting 167/250/333 in the heart of the order (again, his HR came vs China otherwise just 2 hits). Nick Weglarz has been the bright light at 389/421/722 (just 1 for 3 vs China).

The coaches have to take a few shots over this. I'm sure digging through the play by play we could find plenty of decisions that show poor judgement beyond using a coach as your leadoff hitter. I have no problem with a sentimental choice for the bench, but playing every game in the leadoff slot after not playing all year? That is just silly, as is counting on Cormier after he pitched in a beer league all year (gave up winning hit vs USA).

Also, it is not good when you can compare a baseball teams' offense to a softball teams as softball teams tend to hit a lot worse than baseball. Ugh. And this despite getting to play China.

Matthew E - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:25 PM EDT (#190888) #

If someone (such as Chinafan) wants to write articles on international baseball for Batter's Box I think I can safely say we'd all love to see it. Just send it to Matthew and he'll take care of it (assuming it is well written of course). See the 'FAQ' section at the top of the page for more details.

And if it's not well-written, I will work with you on it. Send more stuff!

Wildrose - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:28 PM EDT (#190889) #

I've been following the Canadian Olympic team very closely , and right about now if Ricciardi was walking down the street I'd have a hard time not running him over given the Richmond debacle.

The team most likely won't qualify for the semi's, and I think John is right, put him in the Cuban game and maybe we win. The Toronto press which totally villifies Ricciardi ( even Blair has been critical of the Richmond situation), is not going to let this one go. The Blue Jays, Ricciardi, and the Rogers corporation are going to be branded as being un-patriotic malingerers.

Was this all necessary? Surely the team could have sent Richmond to the Olympics and then brought him up afterwords for a look. Ricciardi's callous indifference to the teams Canadian fan base is ridiculous. I find this typical however of Ricciardi's, fly by the seat of your pants decision making process. At some point you'd have to think Rogers is going to be tired of constantly putting out Ricciardi's P.R. boondogles. It's very hard for me to support this teams management group.

Magpie - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:33 PM EDT (#190890) #

a team with top-notch pitching and defense, and with solidly average offense.

Since Gaston took over, they're scoring about 4.7 runs per game, which is almost exactly the league average. But, I dunno - over the last 50 games, I think they're actually scored more runs than you would expect from these offensive elements. It still looks like a below average offense to me, although it's scoring at the league average.

And what's happened with the DPs simply mystifes me. I'll give Gaston and Tenace credit for the increased power (and the decrease in walks) - they're going up to the plate to hit. And for the elimination of the CS. But I kind of think the team ran into Random Bad Luck with the DPs over the first half.

Magpie - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:41 PM EDT (#190891) #

Of course, if you don't follow the Olympics at all there was no Scott Richmond debacle. Jesse Litsch needed to go back to the shop for some tinkering. Richmond filled in and did an adequate job each time out. Should they have picked someone else? Only if they thought someone else was more likely to do the job the team needed done at that time.

Barry Bonnell - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:54 PM EDT (#190892) #

For anyone interested here is a long article from ESPN on the above mentioned Yu Darvish. A very good read with good photos and some video.

Definitely a player to keep your eyes on. We can only dream of him one day in a Jays uniform.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=darvish

whiterasta80 - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 03:58 PM EDT (#190894) #

Magpie, the drop in double plays could be because of the Hit and Run as well. Perhaps (I can't say I have observational evidence for this) we just had alot of guys taking swings they shouldn't have. When they missed we had a CS obviously, but sometimes when they hit it could have been right at a fielder for the DP.

Magpie - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 04:10 PM EDT (#190895) #

the drop in double plays could be because of the Hit and Run as well.

Could well be. I'm sure the DPs were making Gibbons crazy - hell, they were making me crazy, and it wasn't my job on the line. The only way to stay out of the DP is to start the runners or to bunt. Gibbons wasn't wild about bunting (and there aren't exactly a lot of good bunters on the team), and there aren't a lot of good base stealers either... which left the hit and run as his only response. But it just made matters worse.

Rob - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 04:21 PM EDT (#190896) #

I notice that absolutely nobody at Batters Box has made the slightest comment on the Olympic baseball tournament

While obviously untrue now, this statement was still untrue when you made it. Do not use the word "absolutely" if you don't mean it, especially around a math guy, because otherwise he will point you to this "slightest comment" from five days ago.

As for everyone claiming that Olympic baseball sucks, I'd like to know how long those grapes have been sour. Four years ago, at this very site, there was massive interest in the Canadian team because they had a chance to win. So, between now and then, when the quality of the competition has gone up (no Greece or Italy, hello USA) and Canada goes 1-4, suddenly the games aren't worth watching?

Dudek, weren't you far more interested during Athens than your "we don't care much about Olympic baseball" comment now indicates?

Richmond wouldn't have helped much anyway, unless he can swing a bat from the right side. I've seen every game except Japan, and the offence and Cormier hurt this team. Not the starting pitching. (Can we have some well-deserved (and unexpected) love for Chris Begg?)

China fan - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 04:43 PM EDT (#190901) #

My apologies, Rob, you are absolutely right.....
In my zeal to provoke a long-overdue debate on Olympic baseball, I may have been slightly exaggerating.

vw_fan17 - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 04:55 PM EDT (#190903) #

Anyone looked at Scott Richmond's angle on this? He's 28 now with a shot at his first ML start. Sure, playing in the Olympics and getting a W (VERY unlikely he catapults Canada from also-ran to gold status) would be cool. On the other hand, I'm sure the salaries in the minor leagues he was playing in were not exactly maxxing out his RRSP contributions, if you know what I mean.. I'm sure just those two starts were responsible for a NICE bonus to his yearly income. I know, not everything's about money...

Jamie Campbell had a similar viewpoint. Ok, at least once I got the link thing to work here, but it seems no more..
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/blogs/2008/08/01/campbell_olympic_oversight/

And just to drop my $0.02 on the whole olympic/international debate.. The only reason I'm even familiar/interested in AAA or AA Jays players is due to battersbox. Outside of the discussion here (and I don't even read the minor league roundups all that often), I'm 90-95% interested in the Jays at the MLB level. USA vs. Cuba happened to be on at lunch (I'm in Silicon Valley), so I watched the US lose (was cheering for them - I'm pretty sure I have something like a -5 modifier for any team I cheer for. -99 when it comes to the Leafs.. :-). Tried to find a summary of baseball (or team sports) on ESPN's website, and it was so confusing I gave up.. Not worth the time. Then again, I didn't watch the opening ceremonies either..

So, if we suddenly added Cuban or Japanese league coverage, I'm sure some would be happy, but it would only mean more articles for me to skip (I barely have time to keep up with this site at times as it its). Of course, that's only my personal view.

Magpie - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 04:56 PM EDT (#190904) #

I notice that absolutely nobody at Batters Box has made the slightest comment on the Olympic baseball tournament

That's certainly true of this guy from Batter's Box, and it's unlikely to change seeing as how I haven't watched even a single minute of this year's festivities. Just not my thing.

But I'm probably the only one, and please - everybody. Feel free!.

Mick Doherty - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 05:35 PM EDT (#190909) #

seeing as how I haven't watched even a single minute of this year's festivities.

There's baseball in the Olympics? Really? When is Michael Phelps scheduled to pitch?

uglyone - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#190910) #

Since Gaston took over, they're scoring about 4.7 runs per game, which is almost exactly the league average. But, I dunno - over the last 50 games, I think they're actually scored more runs than you would expect from these offensive elements. It still looks like a below average offense to me, although it's scoring at the league average.

Well, if you break down the lineup, you get 400-ish at bats for elite hitters (Rios and Lind both in the .900-.950ish ops range) which balances out with the 400-ish at bats for the really bad hitters (Mench, Barajas, McDonald, WIlkerson, Zaun all in the .500-.650ish ops range). Then there's about 900 more at bats in the average range (.700-800ish ops range), where all of Wells, Overbay, Inglett, Stairs, Rolen, Eckstein, and Scutaro sit.

So an average output isn't really unexpected, IMO.

And what's happened with the DPs simply mystifes me. I'll give Gaston and Tenace credit for the increased power (and the decrease in walks) - they're going up to the plate to hit. And for the elimination of the CS. But I kind of think the team ran into Random Bad Luck with the DPs over the first half.

It's weird, but there's definitely an anti-OBP argument lurking behind those numbers. I simply don't think we've had as many opportunities to hit into DPs as we did before. Of course, that's not nearly a full explanation for it, and of course, OBP is for the most part a very good thing, but there might be something to said about the way Gaston forms his lineup. It's not like he's stacking all his good players or high-obp guys up top the lineup.

But given the pretty immediate difference in the team's attitude at the plate since Cito took over, I have a really hard time with the "bad luck" argument. Sure, there is always luck involved, but there's no doubt that they've steadily improved from Scared to Confident with runners on base, and it's very, very hard not to give the manager credit for some of this.

Especially since this first half isn't the only time our offense has seemingly underperformed under Gibber's watch.

Rob - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 07:00 PM EDT (#190912) #

When is Michael Phelps scheduled to pitch?

Today's Peanuts reminds me a lot of this thread.

Dave Till - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 08:43 PM EDT (#190917) #

I was curious, so I looked up Frank Thomas's stats since the all-star break (courtesy of ESPN). In 16 games (58 AB), he has two extra-base hits and is slugging .276. He's driven in two runs.

Wildrose - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 09:32 PM EDT (#190918) #

Richmond wouldn't have helped much anyway

I'm not so sure Rob. Long before Richmond was called up, he was slated to start against Cuba. His nominal replacements were Rob McNiven (AA player) and Jonathan Lockwood ( Ontario inter county league) who combined to give up 5 runs in the first 5 innings, I think it fair to say that Richmond a quasi major leaguer/AAAA hurler would have been more successful. I do agree that Cormier and Reitsma the teams veteran middle relievers have been poor. Begg has pitched well, especially for a guy who's coming back from a major arm injury.

Wildrose - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 10:49 PM EDT (#190921) #

If JP and came out and said "I don't want Puhl to burn out Richmond's arm." I would support his decision entirely.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that Ricciardi was trying to save Richmond from being "burned" out in the Olympics. His use had been previously negotiated and then rescinded at the last moment . Players released to National teams come with several detailed caveats encompassing their pitch counts, days of rest etc.., Ricciardi who was an adviser for US baseball in the 2004 Olympics would be well aware of these agreements.

Basically they sent Litsch down for some "tinkering", Ricciardi who loves to ride the hot hand, decided that Richmond's 32 innings of AAA success demanded he be called up as his replacement. Unfortunately this G.M. has absolutely no insight into proper sample size or political tact. I'd argue that John Parrish (he of only 4 MLB starts) , Davis Romero, or Zane Davis would have been just as good of replacements for Litsch. If you really liked Richmond bring him up after the Olympics, it's not as if this team is involved in the thick of a pennant race.

92-93 - Monday, August 18 2008 @ 11:40 PM EDT (#190922) #

"Ricciardi who loves to ride the hot hand,"

As evidenced by his pickups of Wilkerson and Mench and attempt at Sexson?

"I'd argue that John Parrish (he of only 4 MLB starts) , Davis Romero, or Zane Davis would have been just as good of replacements for Litsch."

First of all, the Z is pretty far from the K. Davis hasn't pitched since June, so is either injured or was released. Cito wanted another lefty in the bullpen so Parrish was moved there. Romero was a candidate, and was probably discussed.

"If you really liked Richmond bring him up after the Olympics, it's not as if this team is involved in the thick of a pennant race. "

This attitude irks me. It was July, and you want the team to not do whatever it thinks gives it the best chance to win? And Richmond did just that, giving up 3r over 5+ innings in all 3. Sure, Romero may have done just as well - but Richmond DID do what was asked of him, so to rail on this move even in hindsight makes little sense to me. Litsch was ready, so back to AAA Richmond went. The Olympics were never a consideration in management's minds, and shouldn't have been.

Magpie - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 12:00 AM EDT (#190923) #

The Olympics were never a consideration in management's minds, and shouldn't have been.

Actually, they were a consideration according to the GM:

�Obviously, the first thing we thought about was, we're not going to bring this kid up for one start and hurt his chances of playing on the Olympic team and putting the Olympic team in any kind of jeopardy,� Ricciardi said. �We had talks about that at length.

The notion that they actually discussed it at all means they gave the issue far more consideration than it would have received from me, of course.

92-93 - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 12:04 AM EDT (#190924) #

That proves nothing. Of course he is going to say that to the media when asked about it. What do you want him to respond - no, we don't care about Canada's chances in the Olympics at all? He gets killled when he's honest (Dunn), he gets killed when he lies (Ryan), so really - what is that quote really worth? I don't think JP gives a hoot about the Olympics, and I don't think he "had talks about that at length". He just has no interest in providing journalists with even more fodder with which to rip him, so he stuck to the politically correct answer.

Magpie - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 12:09 AM EDT (#190925) #

Quite possible, although it demonstrates a bit more concern for PR than we're used to from this management group. But you're right - every way you look at it, he loses. He irritates some people by not heeding the pressing call of Scott Richmond's Olympic dream, and he irritates people like me for even letting the subject cross his mind.

Magpie - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 12:18 AM EDT (#190927) #

As far as the hot hand goes, Romero was a little hotter than Richmond in late July - in his last three starts, Romero had gone 1-1, 1.58; Richmond had gone 0-1, 3.32.

It's also possible that they may have asked the manager for his input. Hey Cito, would you like to take a look at the little southpaw or the big right-hander? The baseball man who won't look first at the 6-5 pitcher before the 5-10 pitcher does not exist.

Wildrose - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 12:30 AM EDT (#190928) #

I guess it all depends on your viewpoint. I'm a cold hard realist about the Jays. For me the Blue Jay post season hopes are dead ( and have been for a long time) so I tend to view moves on a long term basis. All that matters for me is 2009 ,so I find the need to give Richmond 3 starts this season as being extremely trivial.

Unlike some, I do care about the Olympic baseball team, so there is a conflict here. Sometimes I wish I could swallow the kool aid like the old days.

Glevin - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 12:34 AM EDT (#190929) #

We generally don't pay much attention to Olympic baseball because it's a minor tournament. It's the best of scrubs and a few prospects. It's like the World Hockey Championships or something. As for the Jays' offensive tournaround, I think it's mostly down to FINALLY playing Lind who has turned into maybe the Jays' best hitter and Rios' predictable tournaround.

TamRa - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 12:46 AM EDT (#190930) #

Alex A told Wilner that when the organization people were asking about Purcey even then the coaches down there were saying "You gotta see this Richmond kid"

Take that for what you will.

92-93 - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 12:48 AM EDT (#190931) #

"All that matters for me is 2009 ,so I find the need to give Richmond 3 starts this season as being extremely trivial."

I don't get this view. I wait all winter for baseball, the anticipation drives me nuts. Now all of a sudden in July I should be resigned to losing, and care more about the Olympic team?! I love watching Blue Jays baseball, and I think even through all the frustrating times this year the Jays have still provided an exciting overall product (defense + pitching). I'm glad that our GM doesn't consider games in July trivial like you do, because I'd hate to see the Jays ever give up. The Rockies last year proved that crazy things do happen. This idea that the Jays shouldn't field what the GM thinks is the best roster possible because of some amateur Olympic tournament makes absolutely no sense to me.

robertdudek - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 01:18 AM EDT (#190932) #

There was definitely more interest around here in the 2004 Olympic baseball tournament - I think for two main reasons.

1) We had not yet had a World Baseball Classic. The Olympics, such as they were, were the preeminent international baseball competition at the time. This is no longer the case.

2) The time zone difference has an impact.

On a personal level, I had a chance to speak to some of the 2004 Canadian team members at Rogers Centre before they went off to Athens. This inevitably increased my interest in their fate.

The_Game - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 03:30 AM EDT (#190933) #

Just read all of that...this post stood out to me:

The Olympic sports have the most stringent drug testing in the world. Baseball's efforts to combat drug use don't even come close to what the IOC has done. In the 80s and 90s it wasn't hard to get away with stuff, but nowadays it isn't easy for an athlete to get away with doping over the long term (some will of course). I'm curious about your "everyone knows most participants use" statement - this trikes me as needlessly pessimistic and knee-jerk. Legal training methods are very advanced right now, which lessens the need to cheat. Why? Because if you can gain 98% in performance using legal means as compared to all out cheating, the reward to risk ratio shrinks to the point where it doesn't make rational sense to cheat. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the level of doping in IOC sports right now is far far less than was the case in the 80s.

Where are you getting your information for any of this? While the Olympics may have an incredibly tough drug testing system, where is the proof that it is actually working? The IOC is certainly just as corrupt as it has always been, and it's been proven time and time again that doping technology is almost always in front of testing technology. New masking agents are always being produced that can make drug tests practically meaningless. I also see no end to the demand for technology like this, either. Athletes will always look any advantage they can get in their sports over their competitors, so there will always be a need to cheat. Don't be naive about that. Sure you can choose to believe that the Olympics are less doped up that in the past, but I don't see any evidence behind that theory.

Medal-winning athletes, as a general rule, become wealthy. Winning an Olympic medal opens up all kinds of doors to you, especially in countries that don't win many. In many cases they become national heroes. If this weren't the case, why would these people put themselves through hell in pursuit of Olympic glory? Do you really think they are all just naive slaves?

A general rule? I'm really not sure how you came by this opinion, but it's completely wrong. If an athlete isn't in a so-called "popular" sport, there just isn't much money to be had, even if they do end up winning medals. You think shot putters, divers, discus throwers, archers, fencers, wrestlers, hammer throwers, cyclers, etc...actually end up getting major endorsements? And national heroes? Seriously? Most people forget about medalists in a few weeks. The only time you ever hear a name like Van Koeverden or Despatie come up is once every four years.

Despite what you may believe, amateur athletes don't do it for the money. They do it for the love of competition and winning, and their will to succeed at the highest level of the sport they've devoted their lives to. Most of them have to move on to "real" jobs later in lives to support themselves. Unless you're a big time sprinter or swimmer, it really isn't a life of glory, especially in Canada.

Sorry for the off-topic. but these statements needed to be addressed.

It would have been better if they were addressed by somebody who actually knew what they were talking about.

robertdudek - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 03:49 AM EDT (#190934) #

New masking agents are always being produced that can make drug tests practically meaningless. I also see no end to the demand for technology like this, either.

An important change from past procedures is that test samples are held for 6 years and if a new test is developed to detect a previous undetectable banned substance, that athlete will be punished retroactively. For example: three years ago EPO was undetectable and it was well known that nearly every elite endurance athlete was using it,particularly cyclists. Now they have a test to detect it. Even if a foolproof system can't be created, the scope for cheating can be reduced such that it becomes increasingly difficult to get away with and the performance premiums can diminish as well.

Of course no one knows the true picture of what is going on, but I believe that the IOC is serious about combating doping in the Olympic games. I have a severe distaste for people who simply throw their hands up and declare that the problem is unsolvable.Such people are often of a strong utopian bent and view anything less than total success as worthless.

I have much more faith that Olympic athletes are by and large competing clean than I have about athletes in any of the major North American team sports. Take that for what you will.

robertdudek - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 04:05 AM EDT (#190935) #

You think shot putters, divers, discus throwers, archers, fencers, wrestlers, hammer throwers, cyclers, etc...actually end up getting major endorsements?

You may not be aware of this, but there is a lot of money to be earned by elite track and field athletes in Europe, and not just the sprinters. The top track and field athletes in Europe are big stars in their home countries.

Also, top road cyclists are highly paid professional athletes. There are also professional table tennis, volleyball and handball leagues in Europe that provide a good income to ordinary players and significant sums to the superstars. And I think even the most head-in-the-sand person is at least vaguely aware that top tennis players earn massive coin.

As far as some of the other athletes, I know that the Romanian government pays 100 000 USD for a gold medal. Do you know how much money that is to someone living in Romania?

In Canada, the sporting focus is usually going to be on hockey players, to the extent that it crowds out other successful athletes. In the USA unless you are a big time track star or Michael Phelps you have no hope of grabbing the limelight from the baseball, football and basketball players that dominate the sports media.

Things are very different in many European countries. Track and field is big business there - as is cycling. I lived in Poland for 8 years and I can assure you that a race walker, a swimmer and a ski jumper were three of a limited number of athletes frequently in the media spotlight.

robertdudek - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 04:19 AM EDT (#190936) #

As far as evidence that doping has decreased since the '90s, I offer the example of weightlifting. The performance of the current elite male weightlifters have not matched the performances put up by the Bulgarians and the Turks in the '90s. We would expect, with better training methods, for performances to get better and better, just as they generally have in track and field. It was well-known that doping in weightlifting in the 80s and 90s was "off the charts" and there are still many doping problems in weightlifting, but I think progress has been made.

Thomas - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 06:37 AM EDT (#190939) #

Also, for those who want to give up entirely on the Jays postseason hopes, the odds actually aren't as bad as I expected, according to at least one source, which pegs the Jays with a 3.8% chance of making the playoffs. That's a lot better than BP's odds, however.

Wildrose - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 07:54 AM EDT (#190940) #

I don't get this view. I wait all winter for baseball, the anticipation drives me nuts. Now all of a sudden in July I should be resigned to losing, and care more about the Olympic team?

I still care about the Jays , but don't react as if its life or death per given game. You'd have a real problem being an Oakland A's fan given the fire sale Beane tends to indulge in on a yearly basis, where as I value these type of moves. We all don't have to sing from the same hymn book around here, I respect that Magpie doesn't give a hoot about the Olympics. To each his own.

John Northey - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 08:31 AM EDT (#190941) #

What caught my eye this Olympics is how the 100 metre dash record was broken by Bolt and set a full tenth of a second below Ben Johnson's best time.

If you assume that all others at the time were clean (a very wrong assumption, but lets use it) then the world record 20 years ago for clean athletes would've been 9.93 seconds. Now it is at 9.69, or a drop of .24 seconds in 20 years. From 1956 to 1988 it dropped just .2, a period of 32 years. As it gets lower it should be harder to break and it should move less. Checking the top 10 all time 'legal' times we get 3 Bolt times and 5 Powell times, both from Jamaica plus 2 Americans. Something seems a bit screwy here.

Ah well. I just try to enjoy it and ignore this stuff normally. Just sometimes the drug stuff gets to you, especially knowing that genetic doping is coming fast.

China fan - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 09:50 AM EDT (#190943) #

The_Game, regarding your comments on the low income of Olympic athletes: you're taking a fact from Canada and trying to generalize it to the entire world. Yes, the Canadian athletes have relatively modest incomes. No, this does not apply to many other countries in the world. Chinese and American medal winners, for example, are doing quite nicely, thank you. The American gymnasts and beach-volleyball stars, among others, have very lucrative advertising deals and are planning post-Olympic tours. I'm not saying that everyone will do as well as the Americans and Chinese, but almost every country has medal winners who are going home as heroes and will cash in very nicely.

zeppelinkm - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 10:20 AM EDT (#190946) #

The_Game:

The Russian girl (Yelena Isinbayeva) who is the olympic gold medal winner for POLE VAULTING lives in Monte Carlo. They did a special on her last night before she won another gold. She is extremely wealthy and lives in arguably the richest place in the world.

For pole vaulting.

...

Pole vaulting. It has to fit nicely into your list of "non A-list popular" sports of discus and shot put. She has a major endorsement deal with Toshiba. There is money awaiting the winners in this little shindig called the Olympics.

The African who won bronze in the kayaking event is being called a national hero (and rightly so) for being the first kayaker from Africa to win a medal (I really hope I didn't mix up the countries here) - you think he's going back home to live in poverty? I doubt it.

Ozzieball - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#190947) #

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Africa hasn't been a country for a long time.

MatO - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 11:29 AM EDT (#190948) #

The African won for Togo but in actuaity he's French. His father was from Togo and that made him eligible for them but I don't think he's ever spent much time in Togo. This happens all the time at the Olympics. Brazilian beach volleyball players competing for Georgia. Kenyan runners competing for the Gulf States. Last night's triathlon had twin brothers competing for NZ and the US.

zeppelinkm - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#190949) #

My face is red - thanks for catching that Ozzie. Hopefully I won't make the same glaring mistake in a face to face conversation. Permission to land a zinger has been post-fact granted. You'd think after a few hundred games of Risk you would know, without having to think, that Africa is a continent and not merely a country.

Excalabur - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 01:06 PM EDT (#190953) #

So, regarding anti-doping efforts, they're certainly doing better than they were.

Blood-boosting (EPO, homologous blood doping, etc.) is getting detected more, because the drug companies are working with WADA on tests before the drugs get out into the world. These drugs are used to treat deseases, so they exist for a legitamate reason, but the companies are willing to provite beta samples early in testing these days: CERA, a new EPO type, was found in three cyclists at this years Tour de France, for instance. Now, as one of those men pointed out, he was tested 18 times and had one positive, so things aren't yet perfect.

Steroids, or other strength aids, have been driven out pretty thouroughly, because they're easy to test for. Have a look at the world records in shotput, hammer throw, and discus, and when they were set. Weightlifting still has issues with steroids, but seems to be catching people at some rate: if this rate is high enough, they'll get a clean sport sooner or later.

I think those are the two main types of doping people are worried about, and things <i>are getting better</i>.

Geoff - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 01:14 PM EDT (#190954) #

Pretty impressive that A.J. is 9-2 under the new guy, but I couldn't fathom how A.J. has turned his season around with the numbers he's put up. He's 15-9 with a 4.67 ERA. How come he couldn't put up a better record last year with much better overall performance? First thing I notice is that he only has two no-decisions in his 26 starts. (correction: 3 no-decisions; he had a decision in his relief appearance April 16) That's a remarkable rate of factoring into the decision of the game. And it's not like he's regularly pitching into the eighth inning. Or the ninth.

So then I look at how the bullpen must be doing and --egads! The bullpen has allowed 1 run in A.J. games since June 7. One run. In 13 games. And Toronto doesn't have a Ziegler in the bullpen.

                Opponent   Score   Dec     IP     R       ER     R by bullpen
Aug 12     @ DET       W 6-4     W         6       4      4
Aug 7           OAK         W 6-4    W         6       4         4
Aug 2     @ TEX            W 6-4     W      5.2    4         4
Jul 28       TAM           W 3-1 W         7     1         0
Jul 23     @ BAL         W 5-1     W         5       1         1
Jul 18     @ TAM          L 1-2     L         7        2         2
Jul 13          NYY       W 4-1 W      8.1    1         1
Jul 9            BAL          W 9-8     W       5.1    7         7             1
Jul 4       @ LAA            L 2-8       L        7    8         6
Jun 29         ATL          W 1-0     W        7    0         0
Jun 24          CIN       W 14-1     W        8    1         1
Jun 19     @ MIL           L 7-8     L         5        8         8
Jun 13         CHC          W 3-2     W         5   2         2
Jun 7           BAL           L 5-9     L         4.1     8       8         1
Jun 1     @ LAA          L 3-4     -           8       2       2         2
May 27     @ OAK          L 1-3     L          5.2       3         2
May 22         LAA           W 4-3     W         6       3         3
May 17     @ PHI          W 6-3     W         6.1      2         2       1
May 12   @ CLE          L 0-3     L         7.2      3         3
May 6            TAM       L 4-5     L         6    5    5
May 1       @ BOS         W 3-0     W         7.2 0       0
Apr 25      @ KAN          L 4-8     L       7.1      5       3       3
Apr 20         DET         W 5-3     W       5        3    3
Apr 16           TEX       L 5-7     L          1    2        2       5
Apr 13      @ TEX        W 5-4     -         5.2    4       4
Apr 8             OAK       L 8-9     -           4.2     6         6       3
Apr 2         @ NYY       W 5-2     W        6         2         2
Total                                                    163.2      91      85   16

So, A.J. is receiving just enough run support more often than not and the bullpen is his friend. Except for June 1 when B.J. blew his first save. And Scott Downs didn't do him any favours on April 25, but otherwise...

zeppelinkm - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 01:26 PM EDT (#190955) #

Geoff:

Contrast that with how the pen has done for Doc, and figure in run support, and it seems the Jays are doing their best to screw Doc of a Cy Young, and ensure that AJ walks at year end. He's had more cheap wins (i'm just guessing here) then Doc by a lot.

At the very least, from your chart you can see that AJ has 4 wins in games where he's allowed 4 runs or more, including one real stinker of a start where he allowed 7 runs. Not to mention 2 no decisions he got in starts where he allowed 4 runs in 5.2 innings and 7 runs in 4.2 innings respectively, and you have one very misleading W/L record for AJ Burnett. Of all the seasons for him to have the most inflated W - L record of his career, is of course the season he has an opt - out clause to consider.

Geoff - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 01:31 PM EDT (#190956) #

scratch those 5 runs by bullpen on April 16; AJ was the bullpen that day. So for the year, I calculate the bullpen allowing 11 runs in A.J. starts. Which does not include the factor of inherited runners allowed to score.

christaylor - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 02:22 PM EDT (#190957) #

Maybe it is just cynicism and like your point about "disincentives" but how many rounds of "clean-up" have the olympics gone through? Each time, new drugs and new methods crop up. This time around I've hearing about new gene-doping technique and the use of tattoo needles to deliver minute amounts of drug in a manner that produces a greater a effect than IM or IV injection. There are probably more methods, to be honest, I haven't been paying attention. It may be pessimism to think most athletes use, but it is a pessimism informed by history. Performances from Athens have recently been struck from the record book and I doubt that things have changed in much in 4 years, athletes have just moved on to other things.

Medal winners win the lottery sure, but they are the exception and in fact, I've read more than a few stories recently that a gold medal isn't the "golden key" that many assume it to be. I find it more than a little disgusting that the athletes get a pittance. Olympic athletes need their own Marvin Miller... they should be getting cuts of the gate and some of the revenues for the games. They're what people are going to see. The olympics today reek of many of the bad things that went on during the MLB reserve era days.

christaylor - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 02:27 PM EDT (#190958) #

Not sure why it reminds you of that... one is probabilistic reasoning, your example is a fallacy based rounding errors.

christaylor - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 02:41 PM EDT (#190963) #

I don't think anyone was disputing that there are some athletes who do quite well. I don't have stats in front of me, but I don't think it is unreasonable to think that Canada's athletes fit the general pattern. Canada is more similar to an "average country" than the two example you cite, the two current behemoths of the games.

John Northey - Tuesday, August 19 2008 @ 03:28 PM EDT (#190967) #

I figure this year AJ got the 'Chacin/Litsch' games. Namely, he can pitch however he likes but both the pen and offense will save him. Call it the mediot Cy Young qualification.

Halladay: 161 ERA+, 8 complete games, 14-9 record
AJ: 91 ERA+, 0 complete games, 15-9 record
and for comparison...
McGowan: 97 ERA+, 1 complete game, 6-7 record

Sigh. At least it isn't the Nolan Ryan '87 situation (league leader in ERA but a losing record while Jim Deshaies was 11-6 with a 85 ERA+ for the same team).

The_Game - Monday, August 25 2008 @ 09:41 PM EDT (#191280) #

No, I think you are exactly right. It's just a fact of sports.

Check this article out: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1834144,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-healthsci

18 August: It's Like You Never Left (with an Update!) | 106 comments | Create New Account

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