That called third strike of Upton was pretty terrible. It didn't really excuse him for jawing off at the ump, but it was a pretty terrible call.

Also, not to go off on this, because it gets tedious after a while, but man, Gregg Zaun. I think my favourite thing was something to the effect of "The Rays do one thing really well to beat you - great defense, good pitching, and timely hitting." I believe he also made mention of the fact that he knew the Rays would play better because Joe Maddon would dig them out of it. I believe that Zaun played for Maddon; some insight as to why he might do that as opposed to blankey statements might help. Some of this is on Jamie for not asking better questions also. The whole thing is a bit jarring, especially after one of the pitching scouting things from Tuesday's game was BABIP.

The funny thing is, I do like Zaun - he's got this kindof agressive personality, and when he breaks down what players are doing and why, he communicates his firsthand knowledge very well.

It seems to me that Davis is hitting a lot of high, weak fly balls to RF. I feel that his higher fly ball rate may be due to this new approach you're speaking of, Jdog.  I tried to prove my assumption by finding a hit chart, but alas, I was unsuccessful and lazy. Would love to see him hit more ground balls and Escobar hit more flies. Everyone seems to talk about Escobar being a fast runner, but he looks pretty slow to me out there.  He has great defensive instincts and has great range accordingly, but on the bases he's not much better than average speed, IMO.

The Jays were helped by a couple of umpire issues yesterday.  There was the reversed call at 1B, where the initial call (Tampa runner safe) was correct and then it was overturned and he was called out on the tag (which was made late).  I was happy to see the umpires confer to try to make sure they got the call right - you almost never used to see that - but then they got the call wrong.  Upton's strikeout was a joke - an inside pitch and an outside pitch both called strikes.  Then you throw in the 2 times Damon was thrown out trying to advance - once at 2B on the short "wild pitch" and then at the plate when there was only one out - and you have a big difference in a 1-run game - 3 baserunners turned into outs and a strikeout that was not deserved.  Damon looks so much slower than he used to be.  He was a very fast guy a few years ago, and would have scored on that double.  Great play by the Jays to turn it into an out.

Great to see Lind hitting like he did in 2009. 

After his typical horrible start, Rivera has an OPS of .893 since April 22. 

Rzepczynski looks great.  Should they consider moving him back to the rotation?  Francisco, on the other hand, had a tough time throwing strikes - so who is going to get the 9th inning work?  I guess it's still up for grabs between him and Rauch. 

Is Escobar a concern?  Perhaps last year was not a one-time off year.  I read on one of the roto sites the other day the suggestion that he may be one of those guys who go into an early decline phase to his career

....He is Lyle Overbay lite....

A bit early to make that comparison, isn't it?  Cooper is still just 24 years old.  Overbay didn't get a full-time job in the majors until he was 26.   We should probably wait and see how Cooper does at the age of 26 and then begin the comparisons.

.....Rzepczynski looks great.  Should they consider moving him back to the rotation? 

To turn him into a starter, they'd have to send him to the minors for a month or two, so that he can get stretched out.  I don't think Farrell wants to lose one of the best guys in his bullpen for such a long period of time.  My prediction:  he'll stay in the bullpen for the rest of this year (which gives him valuable major-league experience) and then try him out as a starter in spring training of 2012.  Of course by then there might not be any vacancy -- depending on the development of Stewart, Cecil, Litsch, Drabek, Mills etc.  But that's sort of the point, isn't it?  With all the other starters in the pipeline, and with Zep doing such a great job as a reliever, why remove him from the bullpen now?  Spring training of 2012 is the time to do it -- if it's still needed.

....We're all painfully aware of how patient AA can be when he wants to give a player a look....

Yes, but at the same time AA is routinely accused of impatience -- with Snider, Cecil, Litsch, etc.  I wish the critics would get together and reach a consensus on this.  Have they decided that AA is much too patient?  Or much too impatient?   Hard to be both, one would think.

I for one would love to see an infield of Lind, Reyes, Escobar and Lawrie come July.

..... a healthy Zep who has had regular work, I imagine if they spent a couple of weeks having him throw 3 innings at a time out of the pen and then gave him 1 AAA start....

I think that's over-optimistic.   Farrell was specifically asked about giving a spot start to Zep, when Litsch and Cecil were demoted, and he said that Zep could not be considered because he was not stretched out.  Also, I don't think Farrell would use the major-league bullpen as a way of stretching out a reliever into a starter.  If he did that, it would really tie his hands in game situations.  First of all, it ignores the hitter splits and match-ups that Farrell would want to respond to in a game situation.  Second, the opportunities for 3-inning stints don't come along regularly.  Villanueva seems to be the "long man" in the bullpen, and he's only had 2 stints of 3 innings in the past five weeks.  If Farrell was required to stretch out Zep by giving him a regular series of 3-inning stints, it could alter his bullpen useage in a way that he wouldn't like.  Third, it does take a few weeks to build up a starter's arm -- which is what they do in spring training, adding an inning to the pitcher's workload every 5 days.  Morrow, when returning from injury, took several weeks to get back to the 6 innings that he pitched last night.  (And don't forget that Morrow wasn't really injured -- he was shut down as a precaution, so his gradual build-up to 6 innings over the past few weeks is a decent proxy for what Zep would have to go through.)

To clarify my Cooper comment:

Firstbase is a premium offensive position

Adam Lind is hitting very well right now, his OPS is 862; his wOBA is 370; his RC+ is 137; his WAR is 0.9 (all stats from fangraphs)

Among AL firstbasemen, Lind is 8th in OBP; in SLG he is 6th; in wOBA Lind is 8th; and in WAR Lind is 5th.

At the moment Lind is just above an average AL firstbaseman.  If you think David Cooper can hit as well as Lind then he can be an AL firstbaseman.  If he can't then where will he end up?  Even though he is only 24 I don't see Cooper matching Lind's offensive output.

Marc Rzepczynski could be the second coming of Scott Kazmir, with a few more ground balls as a bonus. Why not find out?

With all the other starters in the pipeline, and with Zep doing such a great job as a reliever, why remove him from the bullpen now?  Spring training of 2012 is the time to do it -- if it's still needed.

The problem is that in the spring of 2012, the exact same logic that sent Zep to the bullpen this year will likely prevail again. Morrow, Romero, and Drabek at the minimum will need rotation spots, and over 2011 we're going to learn a lot about Litsch, Reyes, Stewart, Mills, Richmond, etc. and any other young SP prospect that may take a leap (Alvarez). The same question you just asked will be applicable then too, which is the risk you run when you stash a good SP prospect in the bullpen - the chance that they tantalize you so much the longer you leave them as RP that you are hesitant to shift them back. Examples of this would be Jonathan Papelbon in Boston or Neftali Feliz in Texas. Furthermore, if indeed Zep is needed as an SP in 2012 when there's likely to be a 2nd wild card added, it's almost imperative that he's stretched out this year so he can go through the growing pains in 2011 and be ready to contribute to a winning rotation in 2012. The other reason to implement the change now, if you plan on ever doing it again, is that it isn't good for a young arm that has been conditioned to start to be used as frequently in limited spurts as Farrell has been using Zep, and then to all of a sudden try transforming that guy back to being a starter. Pitching is unnatural enough as it is, you run a serious risk there of jeopardizing any good muscle memory a certain guy will have established.

Marcum, who had been starting in the minors, had really just spent six weeks in the bullpen.

How is this different than the Rzepczynski experience?  He`s only spent six weeks in the bullpen too.

This year was to find out what the need is going forward.   Next year, Toronto will be competing for a playoff spot.   If you don't believe that, too bad, I think it's been obvious since last season.  

Jose Bautista is for real.   Rajai Davis is good enough defensively to carry his offense - until we get someone better.   Otherwise he'd be a great 4th outfielder.   This is Travis Snider's year.   If he shows he can take the next step, he'll be a big part of this team.   I see Bautista in Right, Davis as 4th Outfielder and two questions in Center and Left.   (We need Snider to be one answer).

Adam Lind is for real.   J.P. Arencibia is close.   Yunel Escobar is good enough for now.   All the other positions have doubts, leaving questions in 2nd Base, 3rd Base and D.H.   (We need Brett Lawrie to be one answer).

I always believed the people on your bench should be starters on at least 1/3 of other teams, otherwise your team becomes weaker when they play.

Pitchers define their roles all by themselves.   Romero, Morrow and Drabek are for real.   Rzepczynski, Janssen and Villanueva are good enough.   Some pitchers make decisions easy.   Some pitchers make decisions hard.   Some pitchers make decisions impossible.   There are two questions at Starter and one or two in Relief.

It's not too early to start looking at possiblities and making more affirmative decisions with this team.

....Examples of this would be Jonathan Papelbon in Boston or Neftali Feliz in Texas....

If there's any chance that Zep will evolve into a Papelbon or Feliz, I can understand why Farrell and Anthopolous might prefer to keep him in the bullpen.  Arguably a top-flight closer is as valuable as almost any starter.  (Although the debate, I know, rages.)

But in general, I think the posts in this thread have been very persuasive.  The examples of Marcum and Wells have clearly shown that it is possible for SOME pitchers to transition from bullpen to rotation fairly fast.  I'm still not completely convinced that Zep would make the transition quite as easily.  But if the Jays give up on Reyes, I agree that Zep is definitely worth considering for the rotation -- especially if Cecil and Stewart are not yet ready.  (Mills is the other one who seems to deserve a shot this year.) 

I don't think, however, that we should give up on Reyes so quickly.  He's had two very good starts this year, and it's not impossible that he will replicate those starts more frequently as the season goes on.

I think the Jays are happy with Zep in the Scott Downs role - I would be surprised if he gets an extended shot at a rotation spot - IMO, Cecil/Stewart/Mills will all get an opportunity before Zep.That ship has likely sailed

Mariano Rivera, the greatest closer to ever play the game has exactly 5 seasons in his 15 year career where he bested Brett Cecil's fWAR of 2010 (2.5).

Which assumes that WAR is a useful measure for such comparisons.

I have my reservations regarding WAR as the be-all-end-all of measuring a players contribution towards winning: and even more so regarding its usefulness in comparing starters to relievers.

A good bullpen is very important to a team: I do not believe a team's aggregate bullpen WAR sufficiently captures that contribution.

What Mike said.

(Minus the supporting references.)

I think you're misrepresenting Hodgie a bit.  I think his comments on Rivera were somewhat anecdotal and he wasn't trying to make the authoritative argument on the usefullness of the bullpen.  He also was working from the assumption Rzep could be as effective or reasonably so in the rotation as in the bullpen.  I think his tenet was that you'd always take 200 IP of Rzep over 60 IP if the quality of those innings was roughly the same.  Debate that if you will.

My impressions of Hodgie is that he has enough intelligence to appreciate the subtleties of WAR, whether he went into a discourse on them or not.

....I think his tenet was that you'd always take 200 IP of Rzep over 60 IP if the quality of those innings was roughly the same.  Debate that if you will.....

Well, let's use some real-world data.  Would you take 200 innings of Zep's 2010 performance as a starting pitcher (an ERA of 4.95) or would you prefer to have 60 innings of his 2011 performance as a reliever (an ERA of 2.45)?  That's a more interesting debate, and it probably reflects the thinking of the Jays braintrust.  They probably think that Zep, as a starter, will remain somewhere close to the 4.95 ERA and they seem to prefer the excellent reliever over the replacement-level 5th starter.

Another relevant example is Casey Janssen.  His ERA as a starter was 5.07 at the age of 24.  The following year, he posted an ERA of 2.35 as a reliever.  Which would you rather have?  I think the reliever was more valuable.  Interestingly, when he came back from injury in 2009, the Jays did try him first as a starter -- and then put him back in the bullpen. 

One of the places where WAR fails when examining actual players on actual teams is the replacement concept. Rzepcynski seems quite a bit above replacement for the Jays in the bullpen, but might not be in the rotation. The replacements in this cases aren't hypothetical roster fill guys, they are the options the Jays have at hand. If they think that Rzepcynski is essentially interchangeable as a starter with 4-5 other guys (all of whom could be good - the Jays don't lack for replacement starting pitchers that project out to at least decent), they the marginal advantage may very well be in using him out of the bullpen.

To me the problem isn't a mediocre starter vs a great reliever, it's how likely is Rzep to be a very good starter? It appears he has this chance, based on nothing but K rates. The Jays aren't lacking for options that can give them a 4.2-4.8 ERA in the rotation, contending means trying to find the guys who are better than that. I thought Rzep was one of those who had that chance, but I'm no scout...maybe his delivery and pitches are suited to 200 IP as a starter?

I think it's completely up to debate what you could expect from Rzep.  We have a very small sample size of relief innings and a relatively small sample of starter innings.  It sounds like a good poll question though, because there is no right answer.  I'd prefer a pitcher pitch himself out of the rotation, not into the bullpen - so to speak.

The only real alternative for a lefty in the pen right now is Reyes.  I think his stuff actually might play up there if he can add a couple of mph like Rzep has.

Perhaps I am missing some more recent arguments but my interpretation is that more analysts seems to believe that reliever WAR is valued fairly well, especially given the usage of leverage chaining in the calculations. Tango, Smith, Cameron, Kalkman et all have discussed this at length over the last couple of years and after much debate seem to come to very similar conclusions.

I won't argue that discussions aren't warranted whether concepts like chaining under-value the best closers a bit or that historically great closers such as Rivera may need to be valued somewhat differently due to almost unique talent levels and skills. That said, the difference in valuation for most closers/relievers still seems hardly significant enough to consistently value them the same as almost any starting pitcher (as the quote I replied to stated) while their quantity of the higher leverage PAs is still so low.

Mind boggling or not, please don't assume that just because I don't personally believe that reliever WAR fails the smell test that I haven't considered the possibility.

I know Mike is aware of these discussions but for those that aren't they are good reading:

• War and Relievers
• Educating a fan on reliever impact
• Bullpen Chaining and Reliever WAR

Well, let's use some real-world data.  Would you take 200 innings of Zep's 2010 performance as a starting pitcher (an ERA of 4.95) or would you prefer to have 60 innings of his 2011 performance as a reliever (an ERA of 2.45)?

It's rather self-serving to cherry pick Zep's poorer 2010 performance (it was actually a 5.03 ERA as an SP) to ask the question. The question should be "would you take 200 innings of Zep's 2009 performance as a starting pitcher (an ERA of 3.67)..." or else you should combine his career SP totals to ask the question, which would be 124 innings with a 4.35 ERA over 23 starts. And even that wouldn't be good enough to evaluate the situation, because the idea here is that Zep is still very young and could actually be better than the version we've seen in his limited MLB opportunities - the K rate certainly supports that possibility.

.....the difference in valuation for most closers/relievers still seems hardly significant enough to consistently value them the same as almost any starting pitcher (as the quote I replied to stated).....

Well, that wasn't exactly what I said.  What I said was that a top-flight closer could perhaps be as valuable as almost any starter.  And by "top-flight closer", I was thinking of a Rivera or a Feliz or Papelbon at their peaks.  There are only a handful of them in the majors, and they are pretty valuable.  And I wasn't suggesting that a Rivera is as valuable as a Halladay.  I was suggesting that a Rivera is as valuable as a non-elite starter, like a number 2 or 3 starter in most rotations.  And I was certainly admitting that even this statement is open to debate!   (And I don't think the WAR numbers would settle the debate, especially for a Rivera-type closer.)

.....you should combine his career SP totals to ask the question, which would be 124 innings with a 4.35 ERA over 23 starts....

You're right, I should have combined the 2009 and 2010 starter numbers.  Didn't mean to cherry-pick.

No.

....I found the club's decision to spend quite a bit on help for the bullpen and not very much on the bench during the off-season puzzling....

Mike, can you explain how the Jays could have acquired a better bench?  When everyone is back from injuries and when Snider is back from the minors, the bench will consist of McDonald, Rivera, Patterson and Molina.  (This assumes Nix at 3B and Encarnacion at DH.)  This is actually a pretty good bench -- and not cheap, considering Rivera's salary.  McDonald provides the defensive skills and pinch-running abilities, and showed some ability with the bat last year.  Patterson is the classic 4th-outfielder, offering speed and some pop with the bat (currently with an OPS of .755).  Rivera has been on a tear lately, and he seems to provide some power from the bench.  Molina is a pretty good back-up catcher.  So overall it's a pretty good mix of skills and talents, fitting most of Toronto's needs, wouldn't you say?

....Napoli and Hudson (to name a couple off the top of my head) could have been on the club at not much greater cost than a couple of relievers with Hill and Encarnacion in different roles....

I agree that Mike Napoli would look perfect at 1B and DH for the Jays right now.  But when he became available, the Jays had already committed $2.5-million to Encarnacion, and they thought he would be good enough.  In retrospect, maybe they should have kept Napoli and used Encarnacion as a bench player.  Let's see at the end of the season -- there's still a chance that EE will catch fire and hit 30 homers, although it looks increasingly unlikely.

As for Hudson -- with his .668 OPS and his guaranteed $11.5-million contract, he might not be the right fit for the Jays.

Still, I'm intrigued by your suggestions. Are you saying that the Jays should have shifted Hill to 3B and acquired Hudson for 2B?  That seems to be what you're implying, but I don't think it would have helped the Jays very much this year -- and certainly not for the $11.5-million that Hudson required.

Also, are you suggesting that Napoli would be a better back-up catcher than Molina?  I don't think I can agree with that, since the Jays are understandably putting a high premium on the need to develop the pitching talents of Drabek, Morrow and Reyes.  To use Napoli, instead of Molina, might have been a bit risky in a development year.  Molina, at a much lower cost, is the right catcher to help those young pitchers to develop.

Morrow has been great but we're told that a change in his arm angle by Bruce Walton made the biggest difference.  It coincided with the time Molina became his full-time catcher.  Coincidence maybe.  Did Molina have any influence?  Maybe.  The only way you can tell is to have someone else catch Morrow.  Drabek, on the other hand, has been deteriorating.  Can we blame that on Molina if he gets the credit for Morrow?

.....Drabek, on the other hand, has been deteriorating.....

I think it's a bit early to detect any trends (upward or downward) in a 23-year-old who has pitched in just 10 major-league games.  Many people thought he would still be in the minors at this stage in his career.  Instead he has a regular major-league gig, and nobody seems to be predicting a demotion any time soon.  Might be attributable to a lot of things, including perhaps the catcher.