Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Blue Jays Report Card: Third Preliminary!

Blue Jays Report Card: Third Preliminary!

Moving right along... the outfielders and the DH.

So what did you think of this year's work from:

Jose Bautista
Colby Rasmus
Eric Thames (remember him!)
Edwin Encarnacion

As always, I grade on the following curve:

A - Outstanding (You could be an MVP, and ought to be an All-Star)
B - Good (You too could be an All-Star)
C - Average (You're getting by, there are probably bigger problems)
D - Below Average (You passed. Big deal.)
------------------------------------------------------
E - Fail. (You don't belong at this level. Not at this moment anyway - not yet or not anymore)
F - Epic Fail (You need to look for a new line of work.)

Posted by Magpie on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 01:25 PM EDT.

Blue Jays Report Card: Third Preliminary! | 51 comments | Create New Account

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

Oceanbound - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT (#263249) #

Bautista: A
Despite a slow start, he was well on his way to turning on god mode again.

Rasmus: C
A bunch of hot and a bunch of cold add up to a bunch of meh. Defense has been alright for a CF.

Thames: E
He was hitting and fielding like Adam Lind except he didn't have Lind's contract, so they could jettison him easily. I'm a bit surprised at how quickly they gave up on him though. Although his likely future is a bench player.

Encarnacion: A
A boss. Just too bad he doesn't have any defensive value.

John Northey - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT (#263250) #

Bautista: B+, his OPS was well below the past 2 years but still up in the All-Star level (134). Injuries also keep him from an A.

Rasmus: C, his OPS+ is just 88, pretty much the same as his rookie season and last year (89's both). His great 2010 is looking more and more like a career year. At 88 with good defense he is a solid C. Interesting that he is just 25, the same as David Cooper.

Eric Thames: F, a 74 OPS+ in LF just won't do the job for a poor defensive player. He is at 102 for Seattle but with his defense still much too low.

Encarnacion: A, would be an A+ with any defensive value - what more could you ask. 149 OPS+, signs long term and keeps his OPS well over 800 every month. Sweet.

CeeBee - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#263251) #

Bautista A- Likely would have led the majors in home runs again if not for injury
Rasmus C+ Very good D, streaky O
Thames D- No field poor hit.... hitting was only value and not much at all
Encarnacion A Great hitting and good baserunning- good fielding(1B only)

Richard S.S. - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT (#263253) #

Jose Bautista is a very observant person who misses little. I believe his slow start was his trying to do too much. The regulars in Spring Training, amongst all those wins, were not hitting that well. And the pattern continued, called selective offense, not prolific offense. He's an All Star, forever.

Colby Rasmus defends very well. His offense is decent and should improve. It's possible he comes back from injury too soon, too often. Pitchers make adjustments to Hitters, while Hitters make their adjustments. I think Colby is just a little slow to adjust.

Eric Thames was barely average, but better than Snider for a time. Good luck to him, but I'll take Steve Delabar anytime.

Edwin Encarnacion became an All Star and should stay one. He can play 1B well. What more do you need?

It's just possible either Anthony Gose or Moises Sierra might be our LF in 2013. Because NO ONE will be happy, if the only significant acquisition A.A. makes this coming offseason, is a LFer.

Mike Green - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT (#263254) #

Bautista- B+ (would be an A if healthy)
Rasmus- C-
Thames- F
Encarnacion- A-

Rasmus: Below average bat, average D
Encarnacion: Below average D at first brings him down from an A

SK in NJ - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 03:40 PM EDT (#263255) #

It's just possible either Anthony Gose or Moises Sierra might be our LF in 2013. Because NO ONE will be happy, if the only significant acquisition A.A. makes this coming offseason, is a LFer.

If Anthony Gose makes the opening day roster next season, wouldn't it make more sense for him to play CF and Rasmus shift over to LF?

As far as grades:

Bautista: B+ (was having a good year but not the elite type of season he had in 2010 and 2011)
Encarnacion: A (amazing turnaround, hope it continues)
Rasmus: D+ (good power but lousy season overall)
Thames: F (terrible defense, terrible offense...if Delabar remains this good moving forward the Jays got a steal).

Magpie - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT (#263259) #

Just one word on my notion of these grades, not that you have to pay them any mind. But if I give someone an F, it means I can't believe they're playing baseball for a living. Anywhere! If, based on this year's work, some guy didn't belong in the major leagues at all - that would be an E. If you were a major leaguer, but a below average one - that would be a D.

On that basis, only one of the 2012 Blue Jays is getting an F from me. (A second guy came very, very close) But Lind or Thames are not the guilty parties!

Mike Green - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT (#263260) #

My notion of grades is that it is based on what the player/manager/GM has done in 2012 to (hopefully) help the team win. I like Eric Thames and think that he still could be an average player, but he was nothing close to that in 2012. He was terrible. Adam Lind might very well be able to give you 250 good PAs in a year when his back isn't barking and he is DH/PHing against RH pitching. He too was terrible in 2012.

If you mean by a letter grade what a player could do in optimal circumstances, it's a completely different set of grades. Colby Rasmus (and Lawrie and Escobar and Ricky Romero...) get an A under that test.

Magpie - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT (#263262) #

Yup, I'm just thinking of what actually happened this year. And while, say, Eric Thames, played pretty badly for the Blue Jays - I don't think he played so badly that he should have been driving a truck (that's an F!). He played like he should have been in the minors (that's an E!)

Quibble, quibble, quibble!

Mike Green - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT (#263264) #

Actually, there is some merit to that. Both Lind and Thames could have had some value to a ballclub if used in a limited way. Thames runs very well, and if used as a 25th man this year, he would have been OK. Same with Lind. Farrell (and maybe Anthopoulos) deserve some of Lind's F for continuing to use him inappropriately (Farrell) and for not providing easily and cheaply available alternatives (Anthopoulos).

greenfrog - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 06:13 PM EDT (#263266) #

Somewhat interestingly, Mark Rzepczynski's ERA+ this year (85) is almost identical to Rasmus's OPS+ (88). Apart from minor details like a WS championship (who keeps track of those?), the trade looks kind of even.

Moe - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT (#263267) #

greenfrog - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT (#263268) #

I know I've harped on this before, but in 2010 (by far his best year in the majors), Rasmus walked 63 times in 534 PA. This year, he's walked 40 times in 553 PA. It seems he's (1) developing progressively worse plate discipline; (2) getting pitched tougher; (3) having his weaknesses exposed; (4) messed up mechanically; and/or (5) being advised by ideologically-minded coaches to "just let it rip; walks are for sissies."*

However, you slice it, his performance has deteriorated a lot over the last year and a half (although the power salvages some of that deterioration).

* Of course, you don't have to walk a ton to be an awesome young outfielder. Mike Trout has walked 50 times in 540 PA, admittedly a better rate than Rasmus 2012, but the difference is in the disciplined hitting, as Trout is just raking (to the tune of a 170 OPS+).

greenfrog - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 06:32 PM EDT (#263269) #

Moe: my comment was mostly tongue in cheek. Rasmus 2012 (1.2 BRef WAR) is definitely more valuable than Rzep 2012 (-0.2 BRef WAR).

Mike Forbes - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 07:34 PM EDT (#263270) #

Mike Trout is also something words cannot describe.

ayjackson - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT (#263271) #

Bautista - B+

Rasmus - C

Thames - D-

Encarnacion - A-

greenfrog - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 08:10 PM EDT (#263273) #

Mike Trout would break Magpie's grading system. How can you compute a player racking up 10.0 Bref WAR in his age-20 season? That's more than two Encarnacions combined (also known as EEEE). If he were a college student, his GPA would be 6.7. Or 8.9. Or something.

greenfrog - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT (#263274) #

* In 117 games!

Magpie - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT (#263276) #

Mike Trout would break Magpie's grading system.

Hmmm. A+? Okay, but I gave that to Bautista in 2010 and 2011... A++? Magna cum laude? Belongs in a higher league?

Sigh. What a nice problem to have.

Mike Green - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT (#263277) #

C'mon. Willie Mays had better seasons than Trout's a number of times. Trout merely has had the greatest season ever by a 20 year old! So, it's an A+. If Bautista's was a 90, Trout's is a 96, with the great Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams and Babe Ruth seasons being 99s and 100s.

Trout gets no bonus for having the potential to be better than Babe Ruth.

greenfrog - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 09:18 PM EDT (#263279) #

Somehow I don't think there is going to be a chocolate bar named after Trout. Perhaps a fancy west coast hors d'oeuvre.

Mike Forbes - Monday, September 10 2012 @ 09:53 PM EDT (#263280) #

People have been serving Trout for years in honor of the forthcoming baseball messiah.

Oceanbound - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 02:53 AM EDT (#263283) #

Mike Trout's 2012 wRC+: 173
Barry Bonds' career wRC+ (yes, *career*!): 175

Too much ridiculous for my brain to process.

whiterasta80 - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 06:29 AM EDT (#263284) #

Jose Bautista- B+ I dock him for a slow start but he was never this teams problem

Colby Rasmus- C: Hot and Cold stretches but he can be a part of this team.

Eric Thames (remember him!)- F: I'm sorry but his defense was historically bad and he hit like Adeniy Hechavarria

Edwin Encarnacion- A+: Where did this guy come from? Bautista redux has made me glad we didn't spend on Prince Fielder.

whiterasta80 - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 06:34 AM EDT (#263285) #

MG: I'd argue that the Lou Gehrig 1927 (not Ruth or Mantle or Bonds) is the standard against which all seasons should be measured.

John Northey - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 08:02 AM EDT (#263287) #

Bonds was a monster offensively, even pre-2001. Lifetime 182 OPS+, 6 times over 200 for OPS+ (2 of those were 92/93, well before HGH). Trout is at 170, which Bonds reached or bettered 14 times, worse than that just 8 times with just 3 sub 148.

Of course, Bonds didn't reach the majors until he was 21, and had his 2 worst years to start (103/114 OPS+)

greenfrog - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT (#263288) #

People have been serving Trout for years in honor of the forthcoming baseball messiah.

They've also been serving salmon, and look what that got them (perhaps it was a prophesy of still greater things to come):

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/salmoti01.shtml

Gerry - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 09:22 AM EDT (#263290) #

Jose Bautista - A

Colby Rasmus - C- ..... too inconsistent for too long

Eric Thames (remember him!) - D-

Edwin Encarnacion - A

Mike Green - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT (#263291) #

Somehow I don't think there is going to be a chocolate bar named after Trout. Perhaps a fancy west coast hors d'oeuvre

I guess so. The Trout Raw Bar is coming to a beachfront near you.

AWeb - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#263292) #

Jose Bautista - B. I mark down for injury time missed, and he did struggle for a good chunk of the healthy time.

Colby Rasmus - C. teases with his ceiling, but has been serviceable overall. Average CF defense, SLG heavy decent offense. His patience seems to go into slumps. At least he's been healthy.

Eric Thames - F. His defense was terrible, and his offense was terrible for a corner OF/DH. I just can't see the upside - his current Seattle performance (102 OPS+, bad defense) seems like a best-case. A replacement player who could stick around for ten years, or be gone next year.

Edwin Encarnacion - A. Can't ask for a better year than this for him. Seems passable at 1B (below average, but not a butcher), and has some use as an emergency 3B/LF/RF type, but emergency only (late extra innings or in game injuries).

ayjackson - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT (#263298) #

MG: I'd argue that the Lou Gehrig 1927 (not Ruth or Mantle or Bonds) is the standard against which all seasons should be measured.

Babe Ruth's 1920, '21 and '23 say "hi!" At least from an Offensive WAR point of view.

And btw, Barry Bonds three best O-WAR seasons were his age 36, 37 and 39 years. I'm really having a hard time believing he didn't benefit from the cream or the clear.

greenfrog - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT (#263300) #

Although he was clearly a talented player, I just don't see how Bonds belongs in this conversation, as we don't know how much his career stats were inflated by PEDs.

John Northey - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#263306) #

Of course, we all know from at least the 50's to the 00's players used various drugs that are now carrying as big a suspension as steroids yet few say 'remove their stats' or 'ignore their stats'. Why? Because everyone was doing it. Of course, that is what many say about steroids/HGH/the cream too.

I say count everyone's stats and just move on. Bonds has seasons that were amazing to watch, as did McGwire, as did Canseco, as did Mays, Mantle, Aaron, and many many others who did something that, today, is against the rules with serious penalties.

The ultimate example of rule breaking, imo, is Gaylord Perry who did a bigger sin with the spitball (movement unpredictable, could kill a hitter as they cannot predict if the ball will hit their head vs steroids which only physically damage the player himself) yet is in the HOF with full knowledge by all voters about what he did.

greenfrog - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT (#263310) #

John, do you have any basis for concluding that the substances players may or may not have been using in the 1950s are at all comparable to the PEDs players like McGwire and Bonds were taking in the 1990s and aughts? I would assume the latter are more powerful and sophisticated, given the advances in science over the last few decades - and, frankly, given the striking changes in Bonds's physical appearance in his 30s.

Also, is there any reason to assume that all or most of those stars of an earlier era were in fact jacking up on powerful PEDs? I haven't heard any evidence to support this view, Burleigh Grimes's slippery elm bark (enshined in the HOF) notwithstanding.

vw_fan17 - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#263311) #

frankly, given the striking changes in Bonds's physical appearance in his 30s.

Not to dispute/disagree with this, but lately, I've noticed a LOT of well-known people changing noticeably as they age. See Alec Baldwin in his 20s and at 40. His head looks 1.4-1.5x as large.

ayjackson - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 06:33 PM EDT (#263312) #

PED's make you funnier.

electric carrot - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 06:33 PM EDT (#263313) #

Not even a full moon and the steroid apologists are already out.

hypobole - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT (#263314) #

"See Alec Baldwin in his 20s and at 40. His head looks 1.4-1.5x as large."

Baldwin is a well known user of brain and nerve tonic, rich in proteins and electromagnetic juices. It promotes robust health. Of course, it has been known to cause gigantism, but only in rare cases.

John Northey - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 09:57 PM EDT (#263315) #

Sheesh - steroids, greenies, etc. All have the EXACT same penalties in MLB today. ALL are performance enhancers. ALL have side effects. ALL are an attempt to use drugs to perform better. The degree to which each works is secondary, the key is all are cheating today and NONE were officially cheating (or at least didn't carry any real penalty) when the players in question used them. When Canseco was on steroids in the 80's it was widely suspected (steroid chants were common when Canseco was on the road in the late 80's), when McGwire was caught with stuff in his locker in 98 no one cared, it wasn't until Bonds got fed up and decided 'screw it' that people suddenly went 'oh crap' (pretty much how the story goes based on multiple accounts).

Mike Green - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:04 PM EDT (#263316) #

There is no truth to the rumour that Trout was farmed rather than wild, and so what if he was, anyways.

ComebyDeanChance - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:52 PM EDT (#263319) #

I say count everyone's stats and just move on. Bonds has seasons that were amazing to watch, as did McGwire, as did Canseco, as did Mays, Mantle, Aaron, and many many others who did something that, today, is against the rules with serious penalties.

Willie Mays took performance enhancing drugs to cheat which were responsible for his success??? Henry Aaron and Mickey Mantle did the same??? These are truly bizarre allegations. Completely unsubstantiated.

If you want to think in your own mind that the greatest single season homerun hitter of all time was Barry Bonds, the second greatest Mark McGwire and the third greatest Sammy Sosa, that's entirely your choice. But please don't try to denigrate Mickey Mantle, Henry Aaron, or Willie Mays by tossing them into the dumpster with those guys.

Oceanbound - Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT (#263320) #

PEDs are like religion. Everyone already has an opinion and it's not going to change. Discussing it is pointless. Let's go back to making fun of Eric Thames' fielding prowess or whatever.

John Northey - Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 06:24 AM EDT (#263322) #

Hardly bizarre, it is extremely well known that players in the 60's were popping 'greenies' like mad - that it was pretty much universal especially for those who were known to party hard like Mantle since it 'woke you up' for the next game. Those drugs are now getting the same penalties as steroids thus clearly viewed as 'performance enhancers'. Given the 'proof' for them is pretty much the same as there is for Sosa (McGwire had stuff in his locker, Bonds had a ton of proof) I have trouble holding the stars of yesteryear up as 'clean'.

A few players from the past have said that they would've done steroids had they been as prevalent in their era as they were in the 90's and I'd be completely shocked if the stars of the past wouldn't have taken them (or HGH or whatever) had they been playing in an era like the 90's. The story around Bonds, confirmed a few times, is he didn't do them until he saw McGwire get caught with stuff during the home run race and how the media didn't attack but just covered up. That led to the 'screw this' attitude and an unwillingness to be left behind. Pro athletes are super-competitive and if they think another player has an advantage you can bet they will either A) fight to get that advantage taken away (like Frank Thomas did) or B) take the same advantage for themselves (like Bonds did). Given no one fought against 'greenies' in the 60's (as far as we know) I have trouble believing the stars of that era would've just gone 'oh, that's OK if everyone else has an advantage and I don't' especially since the media was sweeping it under the rug and even after it was known (with the publication of Ball Four) it was just laughed at like spit balls are.

It is strange how some types of breaking the rules are acceptable and even encouraged while others are vilified even if they carry the same penalties.

CeeBee - Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 09:03 AM EDT (#263323) #

In a perfect world we wouldn't be having this discussion. Even in this world once is enough. Eric Thames defence is just one of the more enjoyable topics IMO!

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 09:39 AM EDT (#263325) #

I have a suggestion. The 2013 Hall of Fame ballot will announced in late November. Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Piazza, Schilling, Biggio and Lofton are likely new additions to a ballot that already includes Bagwell, Raines, Trammell, Edgar, McGriff, McGwire, and Palmeiro. That's a lotta tomatoes; the ballot announcement will be a perfect opportunity to discuss PED usage past and present.

eudaimon - Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT (#263328) #

@ JohnNorthey

Greenies main purpose was as a stimulant. It's not really a performance enhancer in the same way steroids are. Steroids help to actually build muscle and make you stronger. Greenies are amphetamines, which are a psychostimulant drug. Greenies are a performance enhancer in the sense that they may give you energy or help you focus, but they do not physically change (or "enhance") your body like steroids do.

MLB only just banned greenies / amphetamines in 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenie_(drug)#Performance-enhancing_use). It was more likely because of the dangers of long-term use than anything else that motivated the ban. Amphetamines are pretty tempting because of how long and grueling a baseball season can be, whether you're partying or not. Another good read:(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/01/11/amphetamines.outlawed/index.html)

In short, I don't think greenie use truly compares to anabolic steroid use. Greenies do nothing to physically change your body, while steroids allow you to add muscle in a way that generally isn't allowed for in natural human development.

eudaimon - Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT (#263329) #

As well, penalties for amphetamine use are much more lenient than those for stimulant (greenie) use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_drug_policy#Stimulants

MatO - Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT (#263331) #

"No I didn't get a haircut. My head grew."

Parker - Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#263334) #

Perhaps the reason nobody got all nuts about greenies back in the day is because there's a massive difference between taking something that "wakes you up" after a long night of partying, and taking something that enables you to get bigger and stronger than would have otherwise been naturally possible. The guy taking the greenies could've been just as alert if he'd gotten a good night's sleep. The guy taking the steroids is able to build more muscle mass in the gym than the guy not taking steroids, no matter how much time and focus he put into his workout routine without any chemical assistance.

Parker - Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 02:37 PM EDT (#263335) #

eudaimon said it better than I, and beat me to it by several hours. I'm not sure how I missed that post until just now. My apologies.

scottt - Thursday, September 13 2012 @ 06:54 AM EDT (#263363) #

Bautista A

Major health concern going forward.

Rasmus C

Could have an MVP season one year. Maybe.

Thames E

Was asked to hit, but couldn't do it.

Encarnation A

Can he repeat?

Blue Jays Report Card: Third Preliminary! | 51 comments | Create New Account

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