The main point I got in the interview was that AA sees his role as being a continual acquirer of talent.  He gave no indication that the Jays would "go for it" at any stage.  Instead he wants to continually make the organization stronger.  I also believe, reading through the lines, that he may never "go for it".  In the 85-95 wins question, and in the later when do you sign a free agent question, he suggested that team performance is hard to predict and if you get enough talent they will have years where they exceed expectations and years when they don't.  Look at Tampa Bay.  Many of their players had strong seasons in 2008 and in 2010 so they made the playoffs in those years.  Some players had down years in 2009 so they didn't make it.  But they haven't broken the bank on free agents.  And they have prospects on the way to support their major league team and cover departures.

I believe that is the model AA is following.  Build up your talent, trade surpluses, but be in a position to win 90 games every year.  Some years you will win 95 and some 85, that part is tough to predict.

I also thought his answer to the free agent question was interesting.  If a team signs an in-demand free agent they have a good chance of suffering buyers remorse as you will have to pay more than anyone else to get him.  A targeted free agent acquisition of a player who is not in heavy demand will give you the opportunity to get a decent return on your investment.

Those were the main points I got out of the interview.

The Toronto Kaizen Blue Jays.

I miss JP Ricciardi. His interviews were more fun.

Yeah...smug, smarmy and deeply arrogant subterfuge is a gas.

Putting yourself out there to take questions from fans regularly, as JP did... I enjoyed that, and respected it. That isn't arrogance. Nor is having a point of view you believe in smug. What do you want, a wishy-washy general manager? I'd hope he'd believe strongly in anything he did or didn't do. Otherwise, I'd worry. That's why JP's interviews were in fact more fun - he did what he did for a reason, and you got a pretty good picture of what that was. Which is rare.

JP stumbled when he didn't tell the truth about some things like injuries - which is common in sports, esp. hockey. But it would have been better not to comment, and remain congruent. Likewise, opinions about players etc. would have been much improved by a refusal to comment. "We look at a lot of stuff, and have some sources not available to the public, and sometimes we make decisions using that information. But you never know what you'll need, and options have a value of their own. So we don't want to say anything that closes options down."

I think with those 2 rules, he could have made his style work a lot better. AA is much more of a "cards close" kind of guy, and you won't really get much out of him. That's a more traditional style, and there may be a good reason why it is more common. But I'm not going to bash a guy who has the guts to get out and talk directly with fans on a regular basis.

The big question is when do you go for it. Right now is NOT the time - you wait until you are a regular in the playoff race first, then watch for when your system is showing signs of age/stress thus knowing you only have a couple more years before a full rebuild is needed.

This seems like the completely wrong approach to me. You want to wait until your a perennial contender and then try extending that success with patchwork "go for it" moves before your self-perceived decline? AA has used the term "building" as opposed to a "full rebuild", and I would hope that's the plan going forward. There's no reason a team in Toronto can't operate like the big market team that is and have sustainable success, especially once that 5th playoff spot is introduced. The Yankees didn't add Sabathia, Teixeira, and Burnett (and you can even add ARod if you look at it from the early 00s Yankees perspective) because of an impending full-rebuild - they did it to maintain their success. That's the model to follow.

Having a gander at Sickels minorleagueball list of Jays' prospects, it seems there has been a greater infusion of talent than I believed since GM AA took over. After a strong draft (so far), it gives him a lot more flexibility to make moves by being able to sweeten the pot and entice other GM's to make a move. Some GM's want more prospects or to have a greater number of players sent the other way (Escobar and Rajai Davis deals). He had two mlb players and one minor (Jojo Reyes) come and sent one mlb player and 4 minor league players out.

I guess if you are a Jays' prospect, you better not get too comfortable where you are. I just hope that fans now start coming out to the park because the team sure is exciting to watch. The press really needs to talk up the team's play rather than just GM or coach focus to reach out to new fans or fans that would like to return.

Trying to undermine someone else in what was then an organization paying him as General Manager, struck me as an act of little character. I suspect Beeston rightly felt the same way.

I suspect Ricciardi felt the same way when Beeston usurped his power to hire the manager, and I don't blame him for allowing his outlet to the US media know that significant players of the team were unhappy with how things were being run. This is something the Canadian media instantly acknowledged was a reality and had chosen to keep under the wraps, and I'm glad it was exposed to perhaps shed some light on why Gaston's magic ran out 17 years ago.

I would be surprised if any GM, or more than a few GMs, in baseball make every transaction and hiring without any influence from ownership and the President. Most don't air pieces of their dirty laundry upon being fired.

I second the praise of ComebyDeanChance's post.

     The 2010 / 2011 off-season will be the most significant, the most important and the most critical of Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations and General Manager Alex Anthopoulos' career, Past, Present and Future.   This off-season will have far-reaching ramifications into all aspects of the operation, the development and creation of the face, the heart and the soul of this team, now and forever.

     With this team, we've had a massive re-organization of the deveolpment and scouting of both amateur and professional players world-wide.   We've had a huge change in philosophy and the aspects of the Draft and of the international signings, resulting in serious money being involved in both.   This and many other changes make this off-season a season of destiny and of hope.

     The development of staff started with tenacity and foresight, and an exhaustive search was conducted for Alex Anthopoulos' most significant acquision of the new Manager and decisions made on the Coaching Staff.

     Next came the season were it all changed.   Projected by most experts to lose 100+ games in 2010.   The team confounded those same experts by winning 85 games with only 77 loses.   This team might win in 2011; this team could win in 2012; this team should win in 2013; this team must win in 2014.

     Then came the announcement that dwarfed the managerial hirings.   MLB top honcho Bud "Light" Selig announced he was considering adding two teams to the post-season in 2012.   Bud Selig rarely makes a statement like this unless it's a given.   (MLB will discuss this at the Winter Meetings, 6-9 Dec. '10, Lake Buena Viata, FLA. - TSN).   This will make this off-season the most important ever.   Everything Alex Anthopoulos does this off-season will, as a result, be examined under a microscope, with an eye to 2012.

     Toronto had an 85 win season without an Ace; with a revolving door on the 5th Starter; with a Bullpen that finished 10th out of 14 AL teams; with a Closer who couldn't pitch in back-to-back games, nor twice in a 3-game series; with Cito Gaston's strange managing habits; with Adam Lind no longer hitting to all fields, nor walking as much as usual; with Aaron Hill's batting and defensive woes; with a team that finished 23/24 in bases on balls, 7th in striking out, 28/29 in stolen bases but 10th in runs scored; and more.

Mylegacy`s drinking problem

Problem?  For who?  Not Mylegacy I am sure.

This is my first post on this outstanding baseball blog.  Just joined a few hours ago. 

Really enjoyed the comments, especially the one which alluded to another fellow's drinking problem.  As an aficionado of juicy gossip, the antics of unfortunate alcoholics while under the influence provide a constant source of interest, amusement and coversational topics especially dear to an old-age pensioner who needs to get a life, such as myself.

However, it saddened me to read so many posts which include the phrase, "when to go for it."  Don't the Yankees go for it every year?  Of course, the Yankees' GM, Brian Cashman, has the necessary financial resources provided by the brothers Steinbrenner.  And the financial resouces of the Rogers Corporation certainly pale in comparison.  Don't they?

Well, actually they don't.  Rogers reported a gross profit of $4.09 billion last year.  That figure is exactly twenty times the Yankees' opening day payroll of $205 million and over sixty-five times the Blue Jays 2010 operational payroll of about $62 million.  Yet Alex Anthopoulos continues to throw nickels around like manhole covers.

Nobody is suggesting that the team should spend gratuitously on expensive free agents.  But I would have liked to have seen the services of Gregg and Downs and Buck retained until replaced by players of equal or better talent.

The 2010 / 2011 off-season will be the most significant, the most important and the most critical of Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations and General Manager Alex Anthopoulos' career, Past, Present and Future.

Yeah, until the next one, anyway.

What, you can't hear La Forza del Destino playing in the background?

Mylegacy, I am a newbie on this blog, so I certainly wouldn't presume to lecture you on your personal habits, simply share my experience. 

Like yourself, I, too, was at one time most appreciative of a fine, single-malt scotch.   Nevertheless, my retirement and subsequent subsistance-level fixed income has reduced my consuption of adult beverages primarily to domestic reds.  Happily, after imbibing  several bottles, even domestic gros rouge begins to go down well, indeed, rather akin to a reasonable facsimile of Baron Rothchild's finest. 

Yes, the oft-cloudy clarity, provocative nose and amusing, nay, hilarious aftertaste of many a non-vintage domestic red, combined with its ability to smoothe the sharp edges of reality and, best of all, its economy of purchase, tend to make life much more agreeable right up to the bitter end.

Cheers!

John N.

I didn't say that the Jays are impecunious, I said that Alex Anthopoulos, who I worship much as I do God (except that Alex is quite a bit more important), throws nickels around like manhole covers.

However, I really did appreciate the proof positive that you provided to refute the statement which I didn't make.   In fact, the argument that the Jays could have, should have, would have signed Aroldis Chapman as proof of the team's salubrious finances (but didn't and saved $30 million) is perfect logic, similar to the uber-logic which wins coveted Supreme Court Decisions.  On Fantasy Island.

P.S.  Please forgive me for tossing around the 64-cent words.  Can't help it.  Former publisher.  Occupational hazzard.  Know it makes me look a fool.  Worse yet, I'm an old-age pensioner; no fool like an old fool. 

Matthew E., many thanks for your remarks regarding my post.  Most appreciated.

As an economics major and former publisher of business magazines, it gives an old man comfort to know that there are other Toronto Blue Jays' fans who equally appreciate the dynamics of micro-economics, the vagaries of the capitalist economic system and, most importantly, read baseball features about revenue streams and the like in Forbes magazine.

A special thank you for informing me that Rogers Communications could buy Hal and Hank Steinbrenner for chump change.  I was apparently laboring under the mistaken opinion that dearly departed George S. was the major shareholder in the American Shipbuilding Company.   

One of ASC's subsidiarys, Tampa Shipbuilders, in partnership with Bethlehem Steel, builds dozens and dozens of ships for the U.S. Defense Department.  Then there's ASC's fleet of transport ships operating out of Chicago.  The list goes on.  Quite an impressive group of holdings.

The money spent on the acquisition and development of amateur prospects that you noted is somethng that all MLB clubs do.  The Jays do nothing dramatically out of the ordinary in this area.  That wasn't the issue that concerned me.

My complaint was the refusal of the Jays to retain league-average or better players, who are due a substantial salary increase, until replacements were either developed from within or acquired through free agency.   I'm not refering to core players like Hill, Lind, Wells and Romero.  Other than the latter group and Jose Bautista, I believe John McDonald is the highest paid of all those remaining with the team at this writing.  If Wells could be moved, Jays would instantly have the lowest payroll in major-league baseball.

You mentioned that you know why Buck, Gregg and Downs weren't retained.  Please let my know the reason, if its anything other than the nonsensical notion that they stand in the way of younger players' development at the major-league level.

If you have any hard financial information regarding the Jays financial losses--which you indicate Roger Communications has been subsidizing--please let me know.  I was under the mistaken impression that despite a shrinking fan base, equalization payments more than made up the shortfall.

You didn't mention the many millions of dollars of promotional benefits at the consumer level that Rogers receives by having it's name closely associated with the team and the renaming of Skydome.  Rather like the team subsidizing Rogers, don't you think?

There is also the multi-million dollar gain on equity investment in terms of the rapid appreciation of the value of the franchise over the years despite a consistently mediocre on-field product and playing to 39% stadium capacity this past year.

Doesn't seem to me that Rogers is losing money on the Jays, but without the necessary financial information forthcoming, only the Rogers bean counters know for sure.

Thanks for the gentle comment on my feeble opinions, gentlemen.  We're apparently all in complete agreement; Rogers Communications views its baseball operation as just another one of the empire's profit centers. 

Or put another way, when Gyro Cutter tosses those nickel-plated manhole covers around, the Boss--whose name can be literally translated to the marvellously oxymoronic "Rock-Bottom Highest-Ever Islamic Prophet Guy"--is right there to catch everyone of  'em. 

The Canadian communications industry is characterized as one of misleading promotional offers, unethical representation, and sharp and illegal business practices.  Rogers Communications and Bell Ontario lead the way.   Bell specializes in illegal overbilling (browse: Bell Class Action) and the government recently charged Rogers with false advertising.  The fine could exceed $10 million.  But those little speedbumps hardly scratch the surface.

Ever wonder how the communications industry "culture" ultimately affects the Blue Jays on-field performance?  Interesting to speculate.

The Jays are now the only MLB team which plays to over 60% empty seats.  But how to induce warm bums into those chairs?  Winning?  But how? Through creative payroll dumps? 

I'm interested in your opinions. 

P.S. Those nicknames are NOT ethnic slurs.  The only people I can't tolerate are the Irish, because they spend their entire wretched existences carrying around enormous crosses and acting silly.  I know,  as I am Irish.  

HOLY BLESSED VIRGIN MARY MITHER O' GOD!  It's HIMSELF!!  Mr. Magpie, ye darlin' man. 

Now on about the Yeats, and don't ye be bringin' a tear to me eye, boyo.  Longin' to set sight on the auld sod again, I am.  And if any of these heathen utter a single word agin Yeats' dreary verse, sure 'n I'll blatter that ignorant creature from here to the High Street.  And take great pleasure in the doin' of it. 

I promise ye that, Mr. Magpie.

Liftin' a glass to you, too, Mr. Bpoz.   And to Magpie and MyLegacy, too.  Be well. 

Yes, a toast!  To all me dear cronies, be they Irish or heathen.

And if, like our poet the dreary Yeats, any of ye lived a wretched childhood full of privation and want, think none o' your misery.  As we Irish have always held that a happy childhood isn't really very much of a childhood at all.

Matthew, you've got a point.  At times I feel the same way, but there does seem to be a small ray of sunlight.

Last Sept. 15, the Blue Jays were 73-73 and fading pretty badly.  However, the team turned it around and won 12 of its last 16 games.  Ten of these games were against the Yankees, Twins and Rays, three vs. the resurgent Orioles, and three with the horrible Mariners.  Why the turnabout?

On Sept. 15th, Jays parade of "5th" starters were 6-19 on the year, but ended the season at 10-22.  Rzepczynski--his broken finger ruined most of his year--was 3-1 with a 2.31 ERA, in his last four starts, then he dominated the AFL.  A solid fifth starter can make a massive difference.  Hardly any of the teams have a good one.  If Drabek beats out Zep, then by definition, the Jays should have a very good starting staff. 

The bullpen was weak in 2010 and at this time it basically stinks.  Carlson, Roenicke, Arcardo, et al, have more than proven themselves not good enough for the team to contend.  Camp, Janssen and Purcey should be okay for the 7th and 8th innings, Rzepczynski may be able to handle a middle-relief/innings-eater role, and Richmond is a possibility for long relief-spot starter.  He's finally healthy now, and he went 4-0 with an ERA under 1.50 in his rehab starts at the end of the season. 

There's a reasonably good chance that Frasor will return (or equal acquired), and if he turns out to be 7th best reliever, then that could be a pretty good relief corps--with the addition of a very good closer, expensive or not.

If all this was to come to pass, then a one-year fairly low-cost, incentive-laden deal with Manny Ramirez starts to make sense.  He could have a major impact as a DH, batting 3rd in the order--followed by Bautista and Wells--to take advantage of his great OBP.

Doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.  Jays' payroll would remain roughly $40-$50 million below the major league average of $112 million.  What's your take?     

Who is better, Jason Frasor or Kevin Gregg (two of the top three pitchers of a team that finished 10th out of 14 AL teams)?   I don't care.   I don't want either back.   They do not make this team better.   We keep Shawn Camp (35), (RHP), (4-3, 2.99, 2SV, 72.1)  because he can do the job.   We keep David Purcey (28), (LHP), (1-1, 3.71, 1SV, 34.0) because he's learning how to do the job.   We keep Casey Janssen (29), (RHP), 5-2, 3.67, 68.2) because he's better than what's left.

Jesse Carlson (30), (LHP), (0-0, 4.61, 1SV, 13.2); Josh Roenicke (28), (RHP), (1-0, 5.68, 19.0); Jeremy Accardo (29), (RHP), (0-1,8.10, 6.2) and Rommie Lewis (28), (LHP), (0-0, 6.75, 18.2) can be traded, sent to AAA, non-tendered or just waived for release.   They no longer have value in this Bullpen.

We can either sign a Top Closer, and / or not, a good Reliever or stay in-house.   We can try Brad Mills (25), (LHP), Robert Ray (26), (RHP), Michael Hinckley (28), (LHP) and others.

WHY?

IF IT PASSES, that two more teams make the post-season in 2012, it might be impossible to acquire the pieces you need next season.   Every team will be after pieces of their own, which might coincide with pieces we fail to get this off season.   This is why I become annoyed / pissed / angry with those near-sighted people who insist we aren't ready to compete yet.   We need to get nearer now, because it gets much harder very soon.   (All expletives pre-deleted).

Better yet is preferring Michael Hinckley to either of them. The hate some people have for Jason Frasor is beyond me.

Shi Davidi talked with AA and he extracted some information from him:

Arencibia looks like the catcher:

“You might be able to not place as much importance on it (ed - experience) because (the young pitchers) have been through it more and they may not need as much help. I still think you'd like to have somebody back there (at catcher) who can handle a staff and run a game, but with the year of experience, I think you can take the reins off a little bit with those guys."

Lind could be the first baseman:

Anthopoulos praised Lind's hands while adding that his footwork needed to improve, and conceded that he's more willing to take a chance on a permanent move.

“If you would have done something like that last off-season, it would have been a total guess. Even though it's a small sample size, you've (now) seen something to grab hold of,” said Anthopoulos. “I don't think anyone can definitively say Adam Lind can play first base over the course of a full season, there's an unknown there.

“And maybe there is a component where you say we're going to take that chance, we're going to roll him out there and see what we have. We haven't made that determination, but I wouldn't rule it out.”

And as of now the Jays are out of the Justin Upton trade talks:

Justin Upton is not on the team's radar any more, as the Arizona Diamondbacks want too much for the outfielder.

Yes, I couldn't agree more, Chuck.  No question A.Y.'s fully realized impression of the basic texture of the subject matter definitely painted the most meaningful mental picture of that group of seven opinions offered on Frasor's shortcomings.  I've long held that an observer's emotional reaction to baseball stimuli outweighs mundane statistics.  Anybody can wade through the latter.

Unfortunately, knowledge of this phenomenon has failed to improve my baseball pronostications to any significant degree.  This could be the result of watching a movie a number of years ago, entitled, "The Silence of the Lambs."  I fould myself relating so closely with one of the main characters, Hannibal Lecter, that I decided to become a psychopath.  Now I really don't posses much in the way of emotions at all.

As a matter of fact, there is only one individual on this blog, Mylegacy, who so far has deigned to do lunch with me.  I don't really consider Mylegacy any more courageous than the rest of you, it's just that he knows that I know that due to his many years of alcohol abuse, his liver has the consistency of an old army boot. 

"Anybody can play first base," Tabby once allowed.  So I'm far less concerned about Lind handling first base than Arencibia's ability to maximize the effectiveness of the pitching staff. 

Of course, the decision to go with JPA instead of John Buck represents a payroll savings of more than $16 million over the next three seasons.  That puts Alex Anthopoulos in an enviable financial position when considering any deal which represents "real baseball value".  (What's that text-message acronym?  Oh, yeah...LOL)

Regarding the three non-acquisitions--Greinke, Uggla and Upton--few insiders believed that Anthopoulos had any intention of going through with any of these major trades.  They assumed that AA was just using these potential deals to find out the level at which other general managers evaluated Jays' personnel.

My insiders also informed me that the guy who traded to Morrow to the Jays has sent around an e-mail to all the general managers except Anthopoulos, drawing their attention to a quotation which was set down over 2,500 years ago.  "Beware of Greeks who come bearing gifts."

Damned if I know why.

Hi Mag, thought you might enjoy this quote from Wiki (attributed to a couple of guys who wrote a book about baseball cards or something) about Dr. Strangeglove.

 "Every play hit his way was an adventure, the most routine play a challenge to his artlessness. It is hard to describe this to anyone who has not seen it, just as it is hard to describe Xavier Cugat or Allen Ludden. Stuart once picked up a hot dog wrapper that was blowing toward his first base position. He received a standing ovation from the crowd. It was the first thing he had managed to pick up all day, and the fans realized it could very well be the last."

One other thing.  I pitched and played first base in amateur ball and, believe me, anybody can play first base. 

While attempting to field dribblers and swingin' bunts up the line, I got kneed in the head quite a few times.  This could explain away a lifetime of somewhat dysfuntional cognitive activity.

Alex Anthopoulos has us all brainwashed when it comes to superior fielding.  This has been one of his constant themes in addition to youth, athleticism, player development and a more "balanced" offense.  The package has a nice ring to it.  Best of all, it can all be done relatively cheaply and can be stretched out over a period of years while begging for both fan support and more importantly, fan patience.

If we can get away from the advanced stats for a minute, in practical terms (wins), what's the difference between great fielding and good fielding.

Not much, according to a lengthy research project I took on at the end of the 2009 season.  Took me five minutes, but that seemed like quite a long period of time, as I have a micro-short attention span.

In 2009, Jays fielding was 1st and the team was 10th in wins.  Yankees were 1st in wins, 5th in fielding.  Texas 4th in wins, 13th in fielding.  Orioles 14th in wins, 8th in fielding.  Only correlation I could find was over in the NL; Nationals last in wins, last in fielding.

That's why I always cringe when baseball observers suggest playing a good-field, no-hit player over a good-hit, not-so-good field player, especially in a power position like 3B, 1B, LF or RF. 

If 100% of the Jays' success is the result of starting pitching, relief pitching, hitting, base running and fielding, what "weight" or percentage over the course of the entire season do you attach to each?

My guess:  SP - 40%, RP -15%, H - 35%, BR - 2%, F - 8%.  What's your opinion?         

Hi, pal

Yeah, you're right.  As usual.  I completely neglected the metaphysical aspect of the game.

When Travis Snider shows up at ST weighing 340 lbs., I going to have to utter the magic phrase in order to transmute him around the bases whenever he gets a hit.  Save a lot of wear and tear on his heart.  He'll thank me for it someday.

Is that single-malt only, or will just any scotch do?

I read somewhere that all it takes to win is money, baseball entrepreneurship and luck.  Luck is the only thing that can't be bought.

So you'll get no agrument from me.

Once through the rotation, the 5 starters typically pitch 30 innings and the 7 relievers pitch the other 15.  This is why I have the a bigger gap between starters and relievers.  Only the 8th and 9th inning RP's have jobs remotely as important as all five starters'.

Good teams are generally built around starting pitching.  So over the 162-game schedule, how can only 22% of, say, a 100-victory season be credited to the starters?  Look at Pittsburg's 2010 season.  They had 55-57 wins or something.  Their very poor starting staff certainly deserve more than 22% of the blame.

I think you're giving fielding too much credit.  Typically, fielding percentages range from  around .950  to 1.000.  Batting averages average what?  .250?  There is no comparison between the degree of difficulty of the two.  Games generally average two or three highlight-reel fielding plays.  The rest of the fielding is pretty well routine.  Occassionally somebody makes an error.

What you're saying obviously has some validity due to the different talent levels of the various players.  Add to this the fact that the least talented players are benched or gone and the most talented players get the most OPA's and the most innings pitched.  So it has to all come out in the wash.  Bautista had 100 walks and someone had to issue them. 

Besides, the parameter for the requested opinion was a full season, not an individual at bat, although individual at bats eventually make up the full season. 

Even more important to understand with regard to the contentious pitching versus hitting dynamic is the fact that starting pitchers rarely have their best stuff and pinpoint location more frequently than once every five starts.  Another one in five starts, they are out-and-out horrible.  Three starts in five, they can't locate their curve, for example, or some other part(s) of their arsenal is ineffective. 

Considering all of latter and including much of the former, I remain largely unswayed in my contention that the quality of a pitcher's individual pitches in terms of velocity, location and stuff will, in the majority of outcomes, trump both the batter's hitting plan or strategy and his subsequent flailings at said pitches irrespective of his particular talent level, which in turn renders my rationale not so much a capricious stab in the dark in the faint hope that I might maintain at least a modicum of self-esteem and peer-group respect as a baseball observer, as, indeed, it appears to be the other side of the page of your own well-considered logic--or at least it could be viewed in that light by a hand-picked, blue-ribbon panel of reasonably astute baseball observers who were cognitive of both theories encompassing these two most important facets of the Great American Pastime--always bearing in mind, and preferably at the forefront, that wonderful old adage which so readily lends itself to baseball commentary, "Bullsh!t baffles brains."

So you see, Mag, we're in complete agreement.   

Depends on how it's being looked at, Mag.  I still say that the difference in the quality of pitching, in your example Tallet vs. Hernandez, makes virtually all the difference in the individual batting outcomes. 

This feels like an apples/oranges discussion where neither one of us is completely right and neither one of us is completely wrong.  We're just looking at the same thing from two differenct perspectives.

Thank you so much for your inspiring spiritual message this glorious Sunday afternoon, Mylegacy.  Your words from On High have given me the hope, faith and fortitude to face yet another week of my arduous lifelong journey.  

Thank you again, dear friend.

BumWino

P.S.  Regarding the revamped bullpen, please don't pencil me in as the set-up person or the closer.  Whatever you do.   I know my nerves just aren't up for it.  I couldn't take it.  It could destroy my fragile equilibrium.  Besides, I don't possess the necessary chutzpa.   I don't even know how to properly stand around, spit and scratch myself.  Since the 1994 strike, these have been the first duties and responsibilities listed on a relief pitcher's job description. 

Hey, I've got it!  I can handle the innings-eater role.  You know, when we're eight runs behind or ten runs ahead.  Then, I'll be lights-out!  You'll see.

Singles Per PApp/Batter Faced

  1. Ichiro Suzuki   23.9
  2. Juan Pierre     21.4
  3. Elvis Andrus    20.5
  4. Rick Porcello   20.4
  5. Rajai Davis     20.1
...
109. B.J. Upton      11.0
110. Carlos Quentin  10.8
111. Aaron Hill      10.3
112. Carlos Pena      8.4
113. Jose Bautista    8.2

Highest Pitcher: Porcello
Lowest Pitcher:  Jeremy Guthrie (13.1, 100th)

Doubles Per PApp/Batter Faced

  1. Adrian Beltre    7.6
  2. Delmon Young     7.5
  3. Joe Mauer        7.4
  4. Brad Bergesen    7.1
  5. Josh Hamilton    7.0
...
109. Chone Figgins    3.0
110. Trevor Cahill    2.6
111. Cesar Izturis    2.5
112. Juan Pierre      2.5
113. Elvis Andrus     2.2

Highest Pitcher: Bergesen
Lowest Pitcher: Cahill

HomeRuns Per PApp/Batter Faced
  1. Jose Bautista    7.9
  2. Paul Konerko     6.2
  3. Miguel Cabrera   5.9
  4. Josh Hamilton    5.6
  5. David Ortiz      5.3
...
109. Denard Span      0.4
110. Cesar Izturis    0.2
111. Chone Figgins    0.1
112. Juan Pierre      0.1
113. Elvis Andrus     0.0

Highest Pitcher: James Shields (3.8, 21st)
Lowest Pitcher: Francisco Liriano (1.1, 100th)

Walks Per PApp/Batter Faced
  1. Daric Barton       16.0
  2. Carlos Pena        14.9
  3. Jose Bautista      14.6
  4. Ben Zobrist        14.0
  5. Brett Gardner      13.9
...
109. Yuniesky Betancourt 3.9
110. Adam Jones          3.7
111. Jose Lopez          3.0
112. A.J. Pierzynski     3.0
113. Cliff Lee           2.1

Highest Pitcher: C.J. Wilson (10.9, 19th)
Lowest Pitcher: Lee

Strikeouts Per PApp/Batter Faced
  1. Carlos Pena        27.1
  2. B.J. Upton         26.9
  3. Mike Napoli        26.9
  4. Jon Lester         26.1
  5. Jered Weaver       25.7
...
109. Joe Mauer           9.1
110. Kurt Suzuki         9.0
111. A.J. Pierzynski     7.8
112. Alberto Callaspo    7.0
113. Juan Pierre         6.4

Highest Pitcher: Lester
Lowest Pitcher: Brad Bergesen (10.9, 102nd)

Couple more stats, one of which is basically implied in the ones above, and gets at how valuable the good hitters are relative to the not good ones.

OBP

Cabrera .420
Hamilton .411
Mauer .402
Choo .401
Barton .393

Lind .287
Kouzmanoff .283
Izturis .277
Hill .271
Lopez .270

Burnett .366
Davies .354
Masterson .353
Millwood .352
Bonderman .342

Marcum .288
Cahill .287
Hernandez .273
Good Weaver .267
Lee .255

I suppose the truly awful pitchers don't get enough rope to qualify with a .420 OBP against. Still, I think the point stands.

GB% is pretty close, and I think looking at historical GB distributions might reveal that it's a wash. This year, though, the hitters win:

Jeter 65.7
Andrus 61.1
Pierre 58.8
Ichiro 57.4
Span 54.3

Hill 35.3
Konerko 35.1
Peralta 34.3
Granderson 33.0
Bautista 31.1

Masterson 59.9
Cahill 56.0
Carmona 55.6
Romero 55.2
Hernandez 53.9

Hughes 36.1
Good Weaver 36.0
Garza 35.8
Baker 35.6
Ervin Santana 35.2

The way you put it this last time, yes, the most significant variations of performance come from the hitters.  But it doesn't mean anything in terms of wins.  No more significant than me saying that fielding averages are about four times as high as batting averages.  It's true, but so what?   

Here's another point to add to what is becoming a rather pointless discussion.  Because the Jays rarely pinch hit, the starting position players have to hang around all game and take their lumps; The 0-fer, The Hat Trick(3 SO), The Golden Sombrero(4 SO), The Platinum Snood (5 strikeouts in one game), and so on.

If you're suggesting that batting results tend to be more extreme than pitching results, I agree entirely.  But again, so what?  The whole issue is about wins.  

Arencibia went 1-30 to end the season.  No Jays pitcher has ever faced 30 batters and allowed 29 hits.  Pitchers are yanked when they run into trouble, so in a way their stats are more artificial than batters'.  "Artificial" batting stats are produced in a platoon situation. 

Another example.  I seem to remember that Wells went over 20 games between homers, maybe late July to mid-August.  During that time Marcum had about five quality starts in a row.  Yet again, so what?

My point is that consistent starting pitching is at least slightly more important than consistent hitting to produce a contending team.  And that the importance of "fielding" is being blown out of proportion by the Jays front office, because good-field, no-hit players come a lot cheaper than the other way around.  We will see a Loney at first base much sooner than a LaRoach or whatever his name is.

I dunno...

Unrelated. One annoying thing about being good at defense is you can't really leverage it. You can put your best short reliever in with a one-run lead in the ninth. You can bat your best hitter behind your OBP machines. But the just-barely-in-your-guy's-range miraculous diving plays come whenever they feel like it, and errors come randomly.

Excellent stats, Mag, but what are you trying to prove--that hitting is more important than pitching to produce wins? 

Your summation or example at the end is kind of confusing.  On the one hand, of course Pena hits more homers than Pierre.  Nobody has to "wonder" about that. 

On the other hand, the pitching coach and manager know exactly how effective their pitcher has been against every opposition hitter.  They don't have to "wonder" about what the hitter is going to do. 

If Pena clobbers Camp, for example, then pitch around Pena, intentionally walk him, or replace Camp with another reliever who Pena doesn't hit very well.  Everybody knows that.

How do the extremes of hitting vs. pitching help the Blue Jays win games?  Seems to me that maximizing the results of the team's playing personnel, including acquiring and/or developing better players to replace weak sisters is the key to winning.  

Mag, if I'm missing something here, please let me know. 

Mike, thanks for that.  I finally get what Magpie's been saying, because I was only considering the probabilities of positive batting outcomes and not all possible outcomes per se, which is almost like saying the same thing in another way. 

The availability of ever more advanced stats tends to become ponderous vis-a-vis their actual value in terms of helping a team win.  I'm talking about real baseball, not fantasy baseball. 

I don't want the nerds to take over the game, setting up the ludicrous situation in which we all have to check out the advanced stats to determine whether or not a pitcher pitched well, even though he has just pitched a no-hitter.  It's almost getting that silly.

Alas, here is the Jamesian take on offense v. defense:

Do you think there is an over-emphasis on defense these days? More and more teams are moving away from the sluggers who can't field to more dynamic players that can. On one hand, this is a move towards making baseball more athletic. On the other, how important is it for a left fielder to be a good fielder if the tradeoff is a 10-20 home run swing?

Well, I wouldn't generalize about what other teams are doing, and I could not say whether there is or is not an over-emphasis on defense. Baseball is about:

• 42 percent hitting,
• 8 percent baserunning,
• 37 percent pitching and
• 13 percent fielding.

Which actually is very close to the numbers that John McGraw put out in 1906; McGraw had pitching at 30 percent, but the game has changed since then, and pitching is more central than it was. 
 
But these numbers assume a level of competence. I think if you have pitchers, fielders can do a lot to help them keep the score down. If you don't have pitchers, there isn't much the fielders can do. And if you don't have fielders, then you need really, really good pitching to survive.

belle curves

Well, a bell curve, anyway .... although considering the curves on a pretty southern girl might bear a chart or two in and of itself!

There are many other factors that affect "this" score for each game ie different SP each game,Back up catcher on day after night game,etc...

The 4 figures (42, 8, 37, 13) are meant to capture, at a macro level, the weighings of the four components of team ability. Why would anyone even want to try to "use" them at the game level?

assuming they are all still Jay's property then I am concluding that the SB component of Offense has improved.

Baserunning is a combination of both stealing bases and taking extra bases on hits (and outs). It's not all about the former.