Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Game thread

The Jays look to continue their hot streak. They will have to do it tonight without Edwin, he is not in the lineup, I assume due to the balky wrist. With Edwin out all the kids get to play including Kevin Pillar at DH tonight.

On the bump it's Mark Buehrle facing Jerome Williams.

Buehrle has pitched 185 innings headed into tonights game. He could have another 200 inning season by the end of the week.

Posted by Gerry on Tuesday, September 10 2013 @ 05:06 PM EDT.

Game thread - 9/09 vs LA Angels | 95 comments | Create New Account

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

Magpie - Tuesday, September 10 2013 @ 08:02 PM EDT (#278936) #

Gose's arm strength is really, really impressive but I'm still waiting to see him to hit his intended target just once.

greenfrog - Tuesday, September 10 2013 @ 09:21 PM EDT (#278937) #

Nice inning for Ricky Ro. Threw strikes, mostly, mixed his pitches, and his stuff looked decent. Kept his composure. A good start.

electric carrot - Tuesday, September 10 2013 @ 09:23 PM EDT (#278938) #

This is baseball's version of the biggest loser. Which team, the jays or the angels are the AL's most disappointing team? Both start the series 67-76. Both were expected to win their division and 90+ games. Is this a contest you want to win or lose? Hard to know. Let's hope it gets cancelled.

Gerry - Tuesday, September 10 2013 @ 09:36 PM EDT (#278939) #

Romero's command is till not great. It's only one appearance but I am still on the fence (written after the eighth).

greenfrog - Tuesday, September 10 2013 @ 09:41 PM EDT (#278940) #

Romero's second inning wasn't quite as sharp as his first, but good for him for battling his way through a tough group of hitters.

Pretty poor play by Davis on Trumbo's hit to LF, playing it nonchalantly and letting it get past him as a result. It ended up costing the Jays what I assume will be an unearned run.

greenfrog - Tuesday, September 10 2013 @ 09:47 PM EDT (#278941) #

This may sound odd, but Ricky still seems to have some of that "deer in the headlights" look he's had this year and last year. I didn't see the classic Romero warrior look we used to see pre-2012.

I thought his command was OK in the seventh (still not quite there), but shaky in the eighth.

John Northey - Tuesday, September 10 2013 @ 10:44 PM EDT (#278944) #

It has to be crazy out there in the pen right now. 13 guys, and it looks like the current 5 will keep started to the end. B-R lists 12 pitchers, but that includes Rogers. Romero and Jenkins are skipped on their listings as it seems they base it on guys with more relief games than starts. So Jenkins might be on the pen list tomorrow while Romero needs another relief game or two to make it (depending on how they handle equal relief and starts). Rogers had 24 games in relief so he won't be off the relief list all year as I don't see him getting 7 more starts in 18 games.

So using that we see with over 3 days off after todays game...
McGowan (4), Oliver (a week off)
3 days off: Delabar, Jeffress, Loup, Wagner
2 days off: Cecil, Janssen, Santos
No time off: Jenkins, Romero, Perez

Wonder if the Jays have decided that Oliver is already retired. Just one game in September, then you go back to August 28th, then August 23rd. 15 pitches from the 24th of August on.

Richard S.S. - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 12:44 AM EDT (#278945) #

Right now winning should be a secondary consideration. This should be an audition for 2014, who is kept, who is a trade asset, who is released.

No one in the relief core will get much. Their true value comes as the 2nd or 3rd piece in a trade. If we consider A.A.'s acquisition as 2 new Starters, with Dickey and Buehrle as two more, 10 - 12 possible Starters are competing with 10 -12 Relievers for very few positions.

John Northey - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 01:03 AM EDT (#278946) #

At this point the goals I suspect are...
1) Evaluate the kids on offense - Goins, Sierra, Gose and Pillar - to see if any deserve a slot for 2014, or even if they deserve consideration
2) Try to sort out what to do with the massive number of #5 rotation guys, from Happ, Rogers and Redmond to Romero, Drabek and maybe Jenkins
3) Get everyone through the season without more injuries

Most of the players are known quantities. Davis is a free agent, Oliver is retiring, Johnson is DL'ed and probably gone, the rest are here like it or not unless a trade or release occurs. Rasmus is the only guy past arbitration year 1 who isn't signed already (final year of it) so he needs a decision to be made on long term or short term but being on the DL makes that irrelevant to who plays now, unless Gose or Pillar suddenly goes and hits like Puig the rest of the season which I somehow doubt will happen.

Others who are marginal for 2014 are known quantities too - Kawasaki, DeRosa, most of the pen (fighting for at most 2 slots), Thole & JPA. Lind is pretty much known now unless he goes nuts one way or the other (K's all the way out or hits 10 HR the next couple of weeks) and even then you'd figure the Jays already made a decision on him.

Yeah, the 3 points I list above are pretty much it.

92-93 - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 10:48 AM EDT (#278949) #

"Gose's arm strength is really, really impressive but I'm still waiting to see him to hit his intended target just once."

Couldn't agree more. Everyone gushes about his arm and speed but at this point I think his defense is still tremendously overrated.

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 11:27 AM EDT (#278950) #

Last night, Gibbons ran out a lineup with Davis, Gose and Sierra in the outfield and Pillar DHing. Why? If you are going to audition, you ought to know what Davis can do defensively and that Sierra is pretty obviously a lesser player than Pillar. If Pillar is going to make it, it will be as a complete corner OF, with good defence and speed, some pop and excellent contact skills. I have the feeling that the club continues to weight scouting considerations way, way ahead of statistical considerations even when there is a long-standing statistical record which supports a judgment (that, for instance, Pillar is way ahead of Sierra).

John Northey - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 11:41 AM EDT (#278951) #

Gose, in extremely limited data, had a UZR/150 of 54.9 in CF last year but a -46.7 this year for a net +1.1 In LF he is at 2.4 overall, RF -28.3 (all last year). His net OF score is a -7.0 which goes against what we've been hearing that is for sure. If he was a +10 then he'd be a 'wow' defender, saving the equivalent of a game a year on defense. Sadly that isn't the case.

Going by UZR/150 in the outfield we have...

Pillar 49.1 - a crazy high figure that would never hold up in a full season
Rasmus 12.5 - sweet
Bautista 7.5 - surprising
Davis -3.2
Sierra -5.6
Bonifacio -7.3 (did he do anything right?)
Cabrera -14.5 (ugh)
Gose -32.7 (205 innings)

Wow, a bit of a shock to see Gose fielding worse than Cabrera and Bonifacio so far in 2013. Cabrera lifetime is -5.2, so his figure isn't a shock given the injury. Bautista is -1.1 lifetime in RF but the past 3 years has improved from -11 to +2 to +7.5...could he be working on it now? For Rasmus he was a bit better as a rookie in CF, but then the past 3 years were either negative or 0 for UZR but he always seemed to have it in him just not doing it. I wonder...did the Jays get a new OF fielding coach this year who might have been working with Rasmus and Bautista? Cabrera is injury related and the kids is more due to where they are and Davis is a -3.1 lifetime so he is just treading water.

China fan - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 12:21 PM EDT (#278952) #

"....there is a long-standing statistical record which supports a judgment (that, for instance, Pillar is way ahead of Sierra)..."

Way ahead? Really? Pillar might be better defensively (although Sierra has the superior arm, if he can direct it and use it properly). But offensively, I don't see how Pillar is "way ahead" of Sierra. To say that, you'd have to ignore their major-league numbers (where Sierra seems to have improved significantly over his 2012 numbers), and you'd have to ignore the fact that Sierra reached AAA at a younger age than Pillar. And you'd have to ignore their AA numbers, since Sierra did almost as well as Pillar when he was two years younger than Pillar. (Sierra had a .782 OPS in AA at the age of 22, while Pillar had a .802 OPS in AA at the age of 24.) You could argue that Pillar had a better season this year than Sierra, but keep in mind that Pillar spent most of the season at AA while Sierra spent the whole season at AAA. You shouldn't say "long-standing statistical record" or "way better" because you're not comparing them at AA or at the major leagues, but purely on the basis of their minor-league numbers in 2013.

Beyonder - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#278953) #

I get the whole adjusting for age thing, but many times it is given far too much weight. Pillar, having fast-tracked through the system, has put up a career OPS of 832. Sierra, over 8 years, has put up on OPS of 737. Repeating AAA this year, his OPS is 731.

So even taking into account differences in age and level, I think it is accurate to say Pillar is "way ahead".

I remember these same sorts of arguments being made about Anthony Gose: how he was young for each level he was at, and how it was just a matter of time before he learned to make contact, develop a two-strike approach, start bunting, etc. Whatever your age, if you've hung around the minors for five years and never shown a propensity for making contact, a ureka moment seems unlikley.

As for Sierra's "improvement" in the majors this year, we are dealing with a sample size of 57 PAs. If Sierra had three fewer hits he would be below the Mendoza line. I think that's a body of data that can be safely ignored.

China fan - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#278955) #

Seriously? You're going to judge a prospect by their "career minor-league OPS" which lumps together their numbers from the lowest to the highest level of the minor leagues, without discrimination for level or age or anything?

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 01:18 PM EDT (#278956) #

Actually, CF, you are right. "Way ahead" is too strong, once you make appropriate league adjustments for 2012 and 2011. Pillar has been noticeably better offensively, is obviously better defensively overall, and is younger. The only reason to prefer Sierra is that he has more power potential and a stronger arm (although Pillar's is very good).

I guess my grievance is that Sierra (and for that matter Gose) have not really earned a look-see. Their performances in triple A the last 2 years have made it perfectly clear that they are not ready yet. In Gose's case, it was mitigated by the questions of the strength of his defensive ability (and the consensus seems to be that while the tools are awesome, the skills and performance are not).

Beyonder - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 01:20 PM EDT (#278957) #

I'm saying that factoring in age doesn't get you very far in this case, when what you are looking at is an eight-year record of mediocrity in the case of Sierra, and a three year track record of well-above-average performance from Pillar. The spread is 95 points, and would be larger if Sierra's OPS were not inflated by his time in Las Vegas.

I mean, absolutely factor in age when looking at Lugo, or Barreto for example, and comparing them to players who are league average. But the flip side to starting minor league baseball at a very young age, is that you accumulate a robust sample at a much younger age. After a while, age stops being persuasive as an excuse for non-performance - especially when you set it up against a consistent sustained performance like Pillar's.

China fan - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#278958) #

"....an eight-year record of mediocrity...."

Sierra reached AA at the age of 21 and reached the majors at the age of 23. He had a mediocre season in 2013, but I don't think you can accuse him of a career of mediocrity. Mediocre players don't reach those levels at those ages. (Andy Burns reached the AA level at the age of 23, and many of us have been praising him.)

"...Pillar has been noticeably better offensively, is obviously better defensively overall, and is younger..."

Pillar is technically younger, but only by 3 months. Basically they're the same age. Pillar has been "noticeably better offensively" at the AAA level this year, but not at the AA level or at the major-league level. The difference in their OPS at the AA level was only 20 points, which is hard to describe as "noticeable" -- especially when Sierra did it at the age of 22 (versus Pillar at the age of 24).

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 01:51 PM EDT (#278959) #

If you want to summarize it that Pillar has had 15-20 points higher OBP once you make league/context adjustments over the last 3 years, I won't argue. I will stand by "noticeably better".

That combined with Pillar's defensive superiority and better speed means that he has a decent (but definitely not great) chance to be a major league regular, whereas Sierra's chance is much, much less. It was not always so. When Sierra hit .286/.360/.393 (with a pretty decent W/K) in Dunedin at age 20 in 2009, he was a good prospect. He got hurt and has regressed since then.

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 01:54 PM EDT (#278960) #

The other thing about Sierra is that he was actually worse than his triple slash line in 2013. If you hit 11 homers, walk 16 times and strike out 106 times in 379 PAs as a corner outfielder in triple A, you are pretty clearly not ready.

China fan - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#278961) #

"....If you hit 11 homers, walk 16 times and strike out 106 times in 379 PAs as a corner outfielder in triple A, you are pretty clearly not ready..."

You make this statement as a definitive and absolute statement, based purely on statistics. Yet the Jays obviously disagree, based on reports from their scouts and coaches (and quite possibly from his pre-2013 statistics, as I suggested earlier). Isn't it possible, Mike, that the best assessment of a prospect's chances is a mixture of statistical analysis and scouting reports? Why should an assessment be based purely on statistics?

If I understand the prevailing views of many Bauxites, the view here is that a statistical analysis can reveal things that a scouting report might not fully show. That's fine, and I agree. But if we're now saying that we can totally ignore the scouting reports and base everything purely on numbers, isn't that a somewhat extremist view? I would hope that the Jays would use a balance of the two sources: a statistical analysis plus a scouting analysis.

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 02:15 PM EDT (#278962) #

The club's emphasis seems to be on scouting, but their record isn't very good in that department. I agree that there ought to be a mixture, but a 24 year old with that poor W/K record and that poor HR data and fairly meager defensive skills fails the smell test.

Matt Klaasen has an article today in fangraphs on Yan Gomes. Matt kindly does not mention that Gomes hit .320/.380/.557 in Las Vegas last year at age 24. Arencibia's line in his MVP year in Las Vegas at age 24 was .301/.359/.626 (that was by far the best year in his minor league career). Of course, the Jay scouts (and most in the scouting community) considered that Arencibia had much more potential as a hitter and as a defensive player. This isn't the same situation as Sierra/Pillar- Arencibia did have excellent power. There does seem to be one commonality; the club is very forgiving of troubles controlling the strike zone. That bugs me.

92-93 - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT (#278963) #

"Yet the Jays obviously disagree"

Because they called up Sierra when their entire starting OF hit the DL?!

Richard S.S. - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT (#278964) #

Moises Sierra was an I.F.A. (Age16) signed and started playing in DSL in 2006. With 716 Minor League games played, he's got a .266 career Avg. with a career .737 OPS over 2606 ABs.

Kevin Pillar was drafted in the 32nd round in 2011 from California State University Dominguez Hills. With 311 Minor League games played, he's got a ..321 career Avg. with a career .832 OPS over 1354 ABs.

Anyone who considers Sierra a better defender than Pillar must also consider Rasmus to be our worst defensive outfielder. And that is poor judgement.

Assuming Jose Bautista or Colby Rasmus isn't traded and a healthy Melky Cabrera plays LF, I would be satisfied with Pillar as the 4th OF.

China fan - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 02:28 PM EDT (#278965) #

"...Because they called up Sierra when their entire starting OF hit the DL?!...."

No, because they continue to give him as much playing time as Pillar (supposedly the superior prospect) and because they have given him as much playing time as Rajai Davis since his promotion. If Sierra was purely a desperation injury replacement, the Jays would be playing Davis ahead of him.

China fan - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 02:30 PM EDT (#278966) #

"....Anyone who considers Sierra a better defender than Pillar...."

Not a single person here has suggested, even remotely, that Sierra is a better defender than Pillar.

92-93 - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#278967) #

How do either of things confirm that the Jays felt Sierra was ready for the bigs? With nothing to lose they're seeing how Sierra handles the MLB level.

I don't think you can read anything into how Gibbons divvies up the playing time for the 4 OFs, and I can only hope AA has intentions of retaining Rajai, which is why he remains squarely in the playing rotation. If not he should've been traded to the highest bidder.

China fan - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#278968) #

"...With nothing to lose they're seeing how Sierra handles the MLB level..."

That's exactly my view too.

If you trace back my comments in this thread, I never said that "Sierra is ready for the majors." I disagreed with Mike's comment that Sierra is "pretty clearly not ready" -- which is not the same as saying that he is definitely ready. But he's worthy of a look. And his performance so far (offensively at least) doesn't suggest that he is unready. Small sample size, yes.

92-93 - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 02:47 PM EDT (#278969) #

I guess I just don't see how the Jays calling him up when he's the only remaining OF on the 40-man roster confirms that the statement of "pretty clearly not ready" is wrong. The upper brass hopefully agrees with MG but felt there was no downside in giving him 6 weeks in the show.

Beyonder - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 03:13 PM EDT (#278970) #

I'm for letting Rajai walk. It's not that I think he wouldn't earn his money (although I read somewhere that he has likely earned himself three years, 15 million) -- it's just that I think that: 1) Gose or Pillar could replace much of the value that Rajai provides, 2) I think Pillar in particular is ready (and needs) to get meaningful at bats at the major league level.

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 05:05 PM EDT (#278971) #

Since Sierra arrived with the big club on August 21, he has been given 13 starts, Davis 12, Gose 11 and Pillar 10. If you are auditioning players, you ought to be giving playing time in accordance with chance of success. And giving Pillar DH time is a bad idea.

Like I said, there seems to be an undue tolerance for players who don't control the strike zone well at all. It is a theme that has run throughout the entire year- Arencibia, Bonifacio, Sierra- and looks to me to be a top to bottom problem in the organization.

Gerry - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 05:11 PM EDT (#278972) #

Mike:

Are you saying that Pillar controls the strike zone well? From what I have seen selectivity is the number one thing he needs to work on.

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 05:58 PM EDT (#278973) #

Pillar hasn't been at his best in the major league trial. Over his minor league career, he has displayed fair selectivity and excellent contact ability. Improving selectivity marginally would be a good target for him. It isn't the same as the selectivity and contact ptoblems that the others had which led to the bad W/K rates.

Chuck - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 06:16 PM EDT (#278974) #

Batting cleanup against CJ Wilson tonight? Adam Lind.

Yes, the game doesn't matter. I know. I know. Blah blah blah. Still. This is ridiculous. Unless they are grooming him to hit LHP next year. Hah!

Mike Green - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 06:18 PM EDT (#278975) #

Please, Chuck. You're killing me.

At least I can't complain about the 9 man bullpen. Septembers do have their pluses.

John Northey - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 07:52 PM EDT (#278976) #

Groan. Lind batting cleanup vs a LHP? I know with EE injured you pretty much have to play him but...really? Cleanup? Why not have Pillar in there? Oh, right, he is hitting 161/224/242 now, with a 368 OPS in September so far. Yeah, not many PA but man is that ugly. Still, vs a LHP why not play him if you are ever going to?

John Northey - Wednesday, September 11 2013 @ 08:01 PM EDT (#278977) #

Watching the game via gameday is frustrating when Dickey pitches. You see pitches in the strike zone that the ump won't call. Wonder if an automatic strike zone would help knuckleball pitchers more than others? Should look it up I guess.

China fan - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 05:10 AM EDT (#278979) #

Gibbons on his outfield, as quoted by John Lott: "He indicated he will continue to play outfielders Sierra and Anthony Gose, recently promoted from Triple-A Buffalo, in most games when Rasmus returns."

Mike Green - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 09:07 AM EDT (#278982) #

Well, I've been optimistic the last two years and where has it gotten me. My expectations for 2014 will be that the club will finish last again. It has nothing to do with a rational evaluation of where the club is (although if you believe management matters, you might have that view). Instead, I would prefer to be surprised in a positive way for once. Go ahead, soldiers of the Big Smoke. Beat your pythagorean by 15 games and get me buying lottery tickets...

John Northey - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 10:44 AM EDT (#278986) #

China fan: seems Pillar has fallen out of favour pretty quickly. No shock as he had trouble from day one with hitting, going 0-17 to start, then over 8 games hit 292/393/458 but since has hit 143/182/190. So a tiny 8 game window where he built up hope but overall hasn't shown much. Sierra in 8 fewer PA has 6 more hits, 7 more doubles, a triple, 2 more walks, 8 fewer K's, plus a stolen base. Gose has a 71 OPS+ vs Pillars 28 and is 2 years younger so I can see why he gets out there more too. Defensively Pillar has looked good, but his bat has been at a pitcher level, not an outfielder level.

Mike Green - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#278987) #

In Pillar's first game or two, he hit two line drives in the general vicinity of Shane Victorino. Not a good idea.

Don't get me wrong. I have no idea whether Pillar would succeed if given a fair shot. It doesn't look like he is going to get it here. If he is out of the lineup facing a lefty, with the club in last place in September, it looks to me like the manager has made a decision, and the quote suggests this to be the case.

China fan - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 12:33 PM EDT (#278988) #

I don't think Pillar has "fallen out of favor" necessarily. The Jays are going with the "hot hand" -- which is currently Sierra and Gose, but could easily change in the future (especially if "future" is defined to include 2014).

One interesting sabremetric debate might be: "hot hand" vs "sample size." It seems that managers often shape their lineup to favor hitters who seem to be "hot" lately, even if that sample size is relatively small (50 or 60 at-bats, for example). Or hitters who seem "hot" against a particular pitcher (even if it's 15 or 20 at-bats). Is this completely foolish, since the sample size is small, or is it arguably legitimate to pencil someone into the lineup if he's been "hot" in recent games, regardless of career or season stats?

Beyonder - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 12:57 PM EDT (#278989) #

Although I sometimes get down on management, I would be shocked if they had formed much of a view about Pillar on the basis of 69 PAs. My hope is that they are just giving him a break after a rough start so that he can collect himself.

I would put it at even odds Bonifacio will teach the Blue Jays a very tough lesson about sample sizes.

Even if you don't subscribe to "hot hand", playing guys who have had recent success is justifiable on the grounds that you want to develop an ethic that rewards performance.

China fan - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 01:12 PM EDT (#278990) #

"....I would put it at even odds Bonifacio will teach the Blue Jays a very tough lesson about sample sizes...."

If so, Bonifacio would also be teaching every Bauxite a similar lesson about sample sizes. Virtually everyone on this site was loudly calling for Bonifacio to be dumped by mid-season or earlier. The Jays held on to him for much longer than most fans would have tolerated -- simply because they were pretty certain that he would eventually turn it around. They were right, he did turn it around.

Beyonder - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 01:31 PM EDT (#278991) #

Well that's pretty much the lesson. Barring some obvious physically-manifested problem, half a season is nowhere near enough time to make a determination about a player's offensive or defensive value -- particularly when your baseline going into the season is that the player is a potential star.

You have to ask why we ultimately got rid of him. We don't seem to have obtained any value.

I can't remember if I was one of the ones who eventually soured on Bonifacio, but I remember defending him in the earlier parts of the season when Mike Green was clamboring for Jim Neygrich to take his spot.

Beyonder - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 01:44 PM EDT (#278992) #

Sorry. "Clamoring".

Mike Green - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#278993) #

In Bonifacio's case, it was a combination of things at the start of the season. His W/K was terrible. He was bunting atrociously. He was getting a poor jump out of the box. He wasn't stealing bases. You could say that some of it was due to injury, some of it due to poor coaching and who knows what else.

Giving him all that playing time with so many things going wrong (and most of them could be discerned by simply watching the game) was a bad decision. For me, the bunting was the most obvious of them all.

As I indicated, the theme is that this club appears to place disproportionate weight on tools- speed, throwing arm, power potential- and insufficient weight on skills. I sometimes wonder if the club has the 20-80 scout rating for player tools for players in the majors and in the high minors and attaches great weight to it.

Mike Green - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:05 PM EDT (#278994) #

The hot hand theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked in The Book. Players do not perform better than otherwise when hot. The issue has been studied over a very, very large sample, and it is a much easier question to investigate than (say) at what age precisely do players peak.

Chuck - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:16 PM EDT (#278995) #

half a season is nowhere near enough time to make a determination about a player's offensive or defensive value

Well, half a season and the whole rest of his career save for 2011.

He has now performed well in one third of his career: the 2011 season and his time in KC in 2013. The other two thirds of the time he has been awful.

Do those in the Bonifacio camp believe that he is now performing at his true ability, and that a 110ish OPS+ is what we should expect moving forward?

China fan - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:19 PM EDT (#278996) #

"....As I indicated, the theme is that this club appears to place disproportionate weight on tools- speed, throwing arm, power potential- and insufficient weight on skills..."

You're saying this in connection with Bonifacio. So, do you mean that his skills suddenly improved after he was traded? Your implication seems to be that Bonifacio got a couple days of coaching in KC and suddenly he became skillful at stealing bases and hitting and bunting. I don't find this plausible. In my view, Bonifacio has the same skills now that he had at the beginning of the season, but something (maybe a minor injury or poor luck or mental lapses) prevented him from utilizing those skills fully when he was in Toronto. If he can perform so well in Kansas City, he could have performed the same way in Toronto.

There are plenty of players who did not improve when they were traded away from Toronto, so I don't find it plausible that everyone is temporarily damaged by Toronto's coaching or management or whatever.

China fan - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:31 PM EDT (#278998) #

"....Players do not perform better than otherwise when hot..."

You'll have to elaborate on this, because it begs all sorts of questions. Clearly there are times when a "hot streak" can actually foreshadow a long-term improvement in a player's performance. For example, when Bautista and Encarnacion began to "get hot" for the Blue Jays (in 2010 and 2012 respectively), it could have been dismissed as a short-term blip, but it actually signified the beginning of a long-term improvement in their performance.

When a manager gives playing time to someone who has a hot hand, it could be (as Beyonder says) to reward performance, and it could be (as Mike suggests) purely a mistaken interpretation of the player's abilities, but it could also be because the manager thinks that maybe the player is improving -- and sometimes (as Bautista and Encarnacion showed) he genuinely is improving. If the "hot hand" theory is totally wrong, the Jays shouldn't have given so much playing time to Bautista and Encarnacion at the beginning of 2010 and 2012 respectively, since their playing time should have been judged on the larger sample size of their career numbers, rather than their recent hot hitting. Thankfully the Jays didn't do that.

Anyway I'm genuinely curious about what "The Book" says about "hot hands", so I'd be grateful for more details, if you have time.

Mike Green - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#278999) #

What I mean, CF, is that when a player is performing as poorly as Bonifacio was on an objective and subjective basis across a wide measure of types of performance, there is no reason to play him at the time. The club ignored all of that evidence in favour of a subjective "like" to his tools- the possibility of him stealing a lot of basis and hitting with noticeable pop for a second baseman.

You could possibly justify the approach in September of a losing season. In April, when your club is planning on competing and has just emptied a bank vault in an effort to do so? No.

China fan - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:34 PM EDT (#279000) #

"....Do those in the Bonifacio camp believe that he is now performing at his true ability, and that a 110ish OPS+ is what we should expect moving forward?...."

I'm not particularly in the Bonifacio camp, but I'd wager that most of us suspect that Bonifacio's future performance will be somewhere in between his Toronto and his KC performances. He's not as bad as he looked in the first half of this season, and he's not as good as he looks now.

Chuck - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#279001) #

He's not as bad as he looked in the first half of this season, and he's not as good as he looks now.

That's about as safe a statement as one can make. His Toronto and KC performances represent his career extremes (OPS+ of 57 and 111).

Bonifacio's future performance will be somewhere in between his Toronto and his KC performances.

Right. He could end up performing at his career level (OPS+ of 79). And that would still not be terribly useful.

China fan - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#279002) #

"...there is no reason to play him at the time..."

If there was no reason for Toronto to play Bonifacio in April, there was no reason for KC to play him in August when they were in the wild-card race. When KC began playing him, his season OPS was .579 and everyone was saying that he couldn't bunt and had forgotten how to steal and couldn't play defence and couldn't hit. Despite all that, KC played him. By your statistical analysis, that should have been a very stupid decision. It wasn't.

Beyonder - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 02:44 PM EDT (#279003) #

2011 was his last full year in the majors -- there is not a lot else to go on, except for the repeated comments from various baseball people that he was the steal of the Marlins deal.

My point is, if the Jays thought he was good prior to him coming here, 284 PAs (even a brutal 284 PAs) should not enough of a sample to disabuse you of that notion.

I don't know what to expect from him going forward, but if there is even a 30% chance that we are now seeing the real Bonifacio, then we gave up on him far too soon in a season where there was no cost to sticking with him.

Chuck - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 03:00 PM EDT (#279004) #

playing guys who have had recent success is justifiable on the grounds that you want to develop an ethic that rewards performance

if there is even a 30% chance that we are now seeing the real Bonifacio, then we gave up on him far too soon in a season where there was no cost to sticking with him.

Your statements sound contradictory to me. It would seem that both performance and a 30% chance of eventual performance would both get rewarded.

Mike Green - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 03:06 PM EDT (#279005) #

The Book looked at shorter periods than 1 month. There obviously does come a point when a hot streak provides an indication of a new level of performance. For instance, nothing in Mike Trout's minor league performance suggested that he was going to be as good as (or better than) Mickey Mantle, and in particular that he would hit 30 home runs in less than a full season in the majors at age 20. In 2012, when he came up, he .324/.385/.536 and .372/.419/.531 his first two months with a BABIP way over .400. That's a long time to be better than expected, but you would still anticipate significant regression. His third months was completely different- .392/.455/.804. At that point, it is pretty clearly not simply a hot streak but an indication of development.

Bautista's September 2009 was more ambiguous but the power spike was so obvious and of sufficient length to give reason to believe that it could be sustained.

Moises Sierra's "hot streak" is nothing like that. If he hits 10 home runs in a month, we'll talk. Sierra's .339/.339/.778 with 5 doubles and 1 triple in the last 18 at-bats over a week was exactly the kind of hot streak that the Book studied. The best case you can make for him is that he has hit .243/.292/.421 over the last two years here (218 PAs) and that is a little better than what you would expect from his minor league record. It is better than doing much worse than expectations from a minor league record (as Pillar has done), but the inference is weak.

Clubs make judgments all the time. This club has been wrong an awful lot on this kind of judgment. The problem I think is that the club has not arrived at a reasonable way of balancing tools and skills in making the judgment.

Mike Green - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 03:17 PM EDT (#279007) #

Kansas City's judgment with Bonifacio was different. They had Chris Getz playing second base who was stinking up the joint. They thought that they had nothing to lose by trying Bonifacio (the Blue Jays had nothing to lose equally by giving Bonifacio 5 games in April while sharing time with Izturis). Bonifacio hit right from the outset for Kansas City, evened out his W/K from the beginning, stole 4 bases without being caught in his first 5 games, and generally looked good as well.

If Bonifacio had started out like that in Toronto in April and Izturis was struggling, I could have easily understood the decision to stay with him. If he performs at or slightly above his career norms, he has some value to a club. That wasn't what happened. He was 10 shades of awful.

Beyonder - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#279009) #

They're not. I made the first statement only to point out that the "hot hand" theory is not the only reason why Gibbons might prefer to play Sierra over Pillar. He may simply want to instill an ethic whereby the players who produce are the players who play.

China fan - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 03:28 PM EDT (#279011) #

"....If he hits 10 home runs in a month, we'll talk..."

Actually it was 8 home runs by Bautista in September 2009. And look, nobody is comparing Sierra and Bautista -- it's an absolutely absurd comparison. But just to play devil's advocate for a micro-second: Bautista's OPS in September 2009 (over 110 PAs) was .933. Sierra's OPS over the past three weeks in 61 PAs is .890. Sierra has 11 extra-base hits in those 61 PAs, whereas Bautista had 14 extra-base hits in his 110 PAs. Bautista's sample is bigger, but both are small samples and could be seen as "hot streaks" -- and many people in September 2009 said that Bautista's improvement was merely that. Again, I'm not comparing the two players in any serious way, just pointing out that the statistical analysis is tricky.

A more logical comparison might be Goins and Sierra. Nobody thought Goins has suddenly turned into a good hitter when he sported a .944 OPS after seven games, and we were right. Sierra could be the same.

I think managers often look at players on "hot streaks" and wonder if they have figured something out. That's one reason why they give them more playing time -- to see if maybe they've figured something out. Sometimes they have. Many times they have not.

China fan - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 03:34 PM EDT (#279012) #

"....the Blue Jays had nothing to lose equally by giving Bonifacio 5 games in April while sharing time with Izturis..."

I think I'm finding that your arguments in this thread are a little inconsistent. You're saying that Bonifacio should have been assessed on the basis of his first five games in Toronto, and then should have been benched because he was "awful" in those five games. Presumably he should have been made the starting 2B if he looked very good in those 5 games. But at the same time, in the "hot hand" debate, you're rejecting the idea that any player can be judged on the basis of a 5-game streak. Isn't there a contradiction there?

mathesond - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 03:55 PM EDT (#279013) #

The reason Bonifacio performed so poorly at the start of the season was simply because I drafted him in not one but two fantasy leagues. I eventually cut him in one and traded him in another, but the stigma remained with him for quite some time. To all Blue Jays fans, I apologize.

James W - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#279014) #

http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Playing-Percentages-Baseball/dp/1597971294 (This is what Mike means when he says "The Book".)

Dispelling the "hot hand" myth means a player who got X hits in his last Y at bats (whatever you want to classify as hot) is no more likely to get a hit in their next at bat than if they got Z hits in their last Y at bats.

Beware of equating a "hot streak" with a significant mechanical change (e.g. Eric Hosmer or Brandon Belt, this season.)

Mike Green - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 04:04 PM EDT (#279015) #

Bonifacio had a career record of being a somewhat above-replacement player. If he starts out in April a little better than that and you don't have better options, it is perfectly reasonable to give him more time. In essence, the April evidence slightly colours the prior record. In Bonifacio's case, it wasn't only the objective measures that were horrible in April; the subjective ones were too, which was what made the club's decision so frustrating. Bonifacio did have decent W/K data in both 2011 and 2012; if he had maintained that, as well as bunting respectably, stealing bases with his customary frequency and efficiency and playing a decent second base, it would have been reasonable to continue leaving him in there on an objective performance basis.

Like I said, Sierra's major league record provides some evidence that he might be a mite better than his recent 3-year minor league record would suggest. The problem is that if you look at the whole picture, offence and defence, a mite better is nowhere near enough. I don't see a contradiction in my approach to the evidence. What I see from the club is a consistent preference for tools over performance; it is one thing to have that as a basis for drafting and lower minor league evaluations, but another for major leaguers and high minor leaguers.

Chuck - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#279016) #

He may simply want to instill an ethic whereby the players who produce are the players who play.

Unless you're Bonifacio. Then, if you have a 30% chance of becoming good, you get to play too.

Beyonder - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 04:07 PM EDT (#279017) #

"Beware of equating a "hot streak" with a significant mechanical change (e.g. Eric Hosmer or Brandon Belt, this season.)"

Although you should also beware of imputing a hot streak to a mechanical change. Analysts have a tendendcy to manufacture mechanical changes every time performance spikes.

John Northey - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT (#279018) #

It is hard to know if a player is 'for real' or not. That is where scouting mixed with stats is needed. The stats will rarely get high enough to justify playing (or not playing) a guy until it has hit the point of costing a team many games.

For Bonifacio the Jays saw ugly stuff - a 536 OPS in April (73 PA), 634 in May (81 PA), 428 in June (67 PA as Gibbons was starting to get sick of this by then), 900 in July (30 PA - did anyone notice that streak?), and a 566 in August before being traded (31 PA). For KC in August he had a 751 OPS (69 PA), and a 788 in Sept (so far, 48 PA). Much like Aaron Hill it is as if a switch was turned on when he left.

Now, was this predictable at all? Maybe. His lifetime splits are 672 OPS on grass vs 587 on turf. This year 661 vs 591. Some players have nightmares on turf it seems - maybe their legs get sore on it or something - and Bonifacio is one of those. Lucky for him there are only 2 teams left that use it (I think) Toronto & Tampa Bay.

Hodgie - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 05:53 PM EDT (#279019) #

I did not wake up to "I Got You Babe" on the radio at 6am, it is not snowing outside and much to my chagrin Andie MacDowell is nowhere to be seen so I can assume it is not Groundhog Day. Honestly, has so much bandwidth ever been wasted on so unworthy a subject as the (purported) baseball acumen of Bonifacio? Have we really run so short of straws to grasp?

greenfrog - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 06:17 PM EDT (#279020) #

At the moment, Boni is looking like the straw that stirs KC's drink (now up to 1.4 bWAR in 117 PA). Why not talk about it? I think it's an interesting subject. Not in a griping way, but rather in a "hey, check that out" sense. He's really turned his year around.

92-93 - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 07:30 PM EDT (#279021) #

"Virtually everyone on this site was loudly calling for Bonifacio to be dumped by mid-season or earlier"

Let's be careful with these generalizations. I certainly hope I wasn't advocating giving Bonifacio away in June for a bag of balls so Rogers could save $.

I think most people wanted Bonifacio to stop playing so much, but the calls to DFA him were far from unanimous.

92-93 - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 07:33 PM EDT (#279022) #

"The reason Bonifacio performed so poorly at the start of the season was simply because I drafted him in not one but two fantasy leagues. I eventually cut him in one and traded him in another, but the stigma remained with him for quite some time. To all Blue Jays fans, I apologize."

I know your pain. I drafted him in BBFL and couldn't drop him all year because I was desperate for SB.

greenfrog - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 07:53 PM EDT (#279023) #

For those who are tired of talking about Bonifacio, how about Yan Gomes? He's up to 297/347/504 and 3.4 bWAR. That's exactly 3.0 WAR more than Arencibia.

Gomes and Boni combined are now worth close to five WAR combined this year, for a few million dollars. Good value.

greenfrog - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 09:15 PM EDT (#279024) #

Gomes 2/2 so far tonight with two more doubles. Now hitting .303. What the heck is it with these ex-Jays? AA probably can't even look at a KC or Cleveland boxscore anymore...

Thomas - Thursday, September 12 2013 @ 10:28 PM EDT (#279025) #

Very few were bemoaning dumping Bonifacio around here. And even his hot streak hasn't changed my opinion about whether he'd be worth the money he'd earn in arbitration next year.

However, a number of people thought Gomes had the potential to be a useful player, particularly given his versatility and the team's short bench. He's turned out to be even more than that and his absence has been even more missed given the production the Jays have got at catcher.

dawgatc - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 05:37 AM EDT (#279026) #

i don,t expect fans to know how good Gomes or any other player is.But I do hope tha Jays and their scouts know enough to make a good judgement on players and its surprising to me to see how often they,re wrong.

Magpie - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 08:29 AM EDT (#279027) #

I can give the organization a lot of grief for a lot of things. I can't give them too much grief about Gomes. The concept of Gomes was and is absolutely wonderful - a catcher who can fill in at the infield corners and the outfield. But with the exception of his 79 games in Las Vegas, he never hit as well in the minor leagues as he's hit this year in the American League. It's hard to see that coming. And they didn't just give him away - they packaged him in a trade for someone who turned out to be their third best starting pitcher.

Of course, Rogers wasn't supposed to be the third best starting pitcher, anymore than Gomes and Aviles were supposed to be better than Toronto's regulars at catcher and second base.

greenfrog - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 08:53 AM EDT (#279028) #

Gomes was perhaps the kind of player the Jays were likely to miss. Not a classic tools / high-ceiling player, but one who is a good baseball player nonetheless. Of course, Pillar fits this profile, too, although he has yet to have success in the majors.

I confess I'm surprised at how well Gomes has done this year. You never know, I guess. Good for Cleveland for identifying and unlocking the potential there.

John Northey - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 09:05 AM EDT (#279029) #

Thought I'd check how we all felt about the Gomes/Aviles for Rogers trade at the time (November 3rd). Of note: it didn't even get its own article, it was a post-script to another one.
Keith Law was slightly on the Jays side, quotes by readers here were "These moves mean nothing, most likely.", " I'm with the "Meh" crowd", "This moves saves a bit of money, a roster space and gets younger, get control. Good move.", "I'm a fan of this trade", ...

Not seeing a lot of 'oh no' ... one or two that felt it might be a bad trade but not seeing anything major.

Chuck - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 09:05 AM EDT (#279030) #

Good for Cleveland for identifying and unlocking the potential there.

Or just getting lucky.

Mike Green - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 09:05 AM EDT (#279031) #

I had not seen Gomes catch; the reports from the club were that he was a marginal defensive catcher with less talent than Arencibia. That was pretty clearly wrong. No one would anticipate that he would have had the season that he did, but if you had correctly understood that he was a capable enough defensive catcher, it would not surprise you that he would have a better season than Arencibia. From that perspective, the club erred. At the time of the Rogers trade, I ragged on the club for getting rid of Aviles, who I felt would be very useful in the middle infield. At least I got that part of it right....

Gibbons on Sierra here. So, let's see. Poor control of the strike zone. Poor baserunning. Poor fielding. But talented. That's the kind of player who in September should be getting occasional time with a view to being sent back to the high minors the following year. The talk of Sierra replacing Bautista in 2014 (if Bautista should be traded) is hard to take seriously.

92-93 - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 09:10 AM EDT (#279032) #

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying conceptually, Magpie. We often see good prospects outperform their minor league numbers at the major league level; them having the ability to do so is exactly what makes them good prospects. It may be hard to see that coming, but it's the job of the team's scouting department to figure out if the player has it in him. My issue with what we're seeing from Gomes is not that the team whiffed on him, though, it's that they likely did so (and traded d'Arnaud) because they had complete faith in Arencibia's ability to handle everyday catching duties for a long time. We continue to hear overtures of the same from Anthopoulos, which suggests that these guys just don't get how bad he is because they know JP the person and expect somebody with his tools and work ethic to be able to get better. There have been many of us around here who have been skeptical of Arencibia since the excitement started when he tore up the PCL on a redo, and he's done very little in 3 years to change that sentiment.

ayjackson - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 09:15 AM EDT (#279033) #

"We continue to hear overtures of the same from Anthopoulos, which suggests that these guys just don't get how bad he is because they know JP the person and expect somebody with his tools and work ethic to be able to get better."

Listening to Anthopoulos on PTS earlier this week gave me the impression they were done with JPA. He sounded outwardly supportive, but if you read between the lines, it seemed clear they were going to look to upgrade.

I'm pretty sure AA is well aware of how historically bad JPA was this year.

Magpie - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 09:33 AM EDT (#279034) #

they had complete faith in Arencibia's ability to handle everyday catching duties for a long time.

Agreed, that's much more frightening than not anticipating this type of performance from Gomes.

China fan - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 09:34 AM EDT (#279035) #

".....I ragged on the club for getting rid of Aviles, who I felt would be very useful in the middle infield. At least I got that part of it right...."

Aviles has an OBP of .288 this season, and an OPS of .677. If he had posted those numbers for the Jays this year, I doubt that you'd be calling him "very useful." His OPS is slightly better than Kawasaki's OPS this year, but his OBP is much lower. His OBP is the same as Izturis this year. These kinds of players are not really so valuable -- and certainly they are disposable if you have a chance to pick up someone like Rogers who has been useful in the bullpen and in the rotation this year. (Now, the Gomes question is a different one....)

92-93 - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 09:35 AM EDT (#279036) #

Hmmm, I didn't get that impression. He seemed pretty defensive about Arencibia while at the same time being quite willing to throw the rest of his defense under the bus.

Cox asks about defense from the infield and catcher:

"I would say better infield defense. I know JP has obviously been a topic quite a bit but at the same time we've had stretches with him behind the plate that we've pitched well. I don't know that the caught stealings and things like that, the stolen bases against, have been our downfall in games. I would say, clearly our infield defense, especially early in the season, hurt us quite a bit. There were some plays even in the outfield...I don't think, from JP's standpoint, we can look at his performance and go through it, the holes are obvious and where he can improve that speaks for itself. But I don't know that you blame it on one player specifically, in terms of game calling and things like that we've had moments that he's been back there that he's done a very good job."

AA goes on to say that Buehrle has been consistent all year with Arencibia behind the plate and that they've had a lot of games that they've pitched well with him back there. "That being said, that's not to say he's not without his flaws and there's not plenty of areas he can improve like lots of other players."

I hope you're right and that when AA alluded to making changes with position players he was referring to Arencibia and that he'd be willing to be candid about JP only once he secured a better option.

Magpie - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 10:02 AM EDT (#279037) #

AA goes on to say that Buehrle has been consistent all year with Arencibia behind the plate

Not quite, but Buehrle's early season struggles with a new catcher are fairly easy to understand. Buehrle, despite being a grizzled veteran and all, doesn't call his own game. He gets the sign, and immediately throws whatever his catcher called for. So his catcher needs to understand what makes Buehrle effective, and he also has to quickly understand what Buehrle has going for him on a particular night. It took Arencibia a while to get the hang of it, but he did.

It's about the only thing he's done well all year.

Mike Green - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 10:10 AM EDT (#279038) #

CF, Aviles is RH with significant platoon splits (it hasn't shown up much this year because of bad luck against lefties and good luck against righties). He is a decent defender. A Kawasaki/Aviles platoon at short when Reyes was out would probably have worked out better, and might even have encouraged the club to give Reyes a little more time in rehab.

In fairness, I had thought that Izturis would be perfectly fine in the Aviles role. Wrong.

Mike Green - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 11:13 AM EDT (#279040) #

Incidentally, Brett Lawrie makes a significant difference for Buehrle. As a soft-tossing lefty, he needs a few weapons against RHBs. He isn't going to strike out many (between 13% and 14% over his career), and he will give up his share of home runs. So, how the team fares on balls in play is very, very important to Buehrle. Many of these balls in play will be ground balls to the left side. With Lawrie out and the defensive replacements for him being pretty hopeless (DeRosa, Izturis), Buehrle was disadvantaged. It should be noted that during Buehrle's best years, the White Sox ran out a defensive left side of Jose Uribe and Joe Crede which was pretty much impenetrable.

Buehrle's ardent defence of Kawasaki was (I have no doubt) heartfelt, but I suspect also he appreciated that Kawasaki was a better defender than Reyes.

Pitch selection is not entirely independent of a club's defensive strengths and weaknesses. If Buehrle is facing a right-handed hitter with runners on 2nd and 3rd and two out in a tie game, and he's got DeRosa/Reyes behind him on the left side in Colby Rasmus in centerfield, he might be more inclined to try to induce a pop-up or fly-ball to centerfield. Arencibia does make the pitch selection, but they do talk about situations...

92-93 - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 11:54 AM EDT (#279041) #

I was expecting to find Jose Uribe's career spanning the 60s or 70s, and was surprised he retired in 93.

As for Juan, I was shocked to see his WAR figures for this year. Everybody ripped that 3/21 contract when the Dodgers gave it to him but it has worked out pretty nicely for them that he's provided all of its value in their year of contention.

Mike Green - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 12:32 PM EDT (#279042) #

Well, if the worst thing that happens on Friday the 13th is confusing Juan Uribe with Jose Uribe, I am in clover. Incidentally, the confluence of Friday the 13th with the beginning of Yom Kippur has secular Jews the world over quite amused. Trying to live ethically while the horror movie around you spools out would capture the spirit. Good luck with that.

Chuck - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 12:44 PM EDT (#279043) #

More Friday the 13th jazz. Finnair flight AY666 flights into HEL today.

Alex Obal - Friday, September 13 2013 @ 08:17 PM EDT (#279054) #

I did not realize that Izturis' defensive numbers were quite so gruesome. What say you, people who have been watching the games? Really that bad?

92-93 - Monday, September 16 2013 @ 10:58 AM EDT (#279109) #

He's been very mediocre at every position, and I don't even know if you can consider him a backup SS any more than Lawrie is.

Mike Green - Monday, September 16 2013 @ 11:57 AM EDT (#279111) #

The DRS/UZR consensus is that Izturis was absolutely terrible in 400 innings at second base in 2013 after being decent in 800 innings in 2010-12. I didn't think that he was terrible at second base; my feeling was that he was merely below average. He was definitely poor at shortstop, and hardly played the position even with the Angels the last few years. The DRS/UZR consensus was that he was below average at third base, after being above average during 2010-12. He is obviously not as quick as he was, and may have been hurt on the harder surface at the RC.

Most defensive rating systems have work to be done on adjusting for ballparks. Way back in the last decade, Jonny German and I did some work evaluating Barry Larkin's defence by comparing it to opponent shortstops, which had the advantage of adjusting for ballparks. The criticism that was levied was that it normalized to too small a base. I still think that there is merit to it, at least for comparison purposes to other measures.

Game thread - 9/09 vs LA Angels | 95 comments | Create New Account

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