The usual odd-ball comments that accompany Gammons' work.

Couple of things:

1) What baseball "sage" said that Keith Foulke struggled last year? Possibly Ken Williams?

2) It's interesting to read about Jesse Foppert's velocity being down; I hope he's not hiding an injury, and I hope the Giants are careful with him. At least Dusty is not around to mess things up.

3) The semi-comparison of Wells to Mike Cameron is an interesting one. Cameron's value is greatly masked by Safeco. BP discusses this at length, too; I'm not saying Cameron would be a superstar, but if he played in a more nuetral hitter's park, people would realize how good he is. And if Wells can develop Cameron's batting eye, Blue Jays' fans will be pleased.

Vernon is much more of a contact hitter than Cameron.

Cameron certainly does K a lot (and swing and miss a lot); I wasn't necessarily saying he's better or worse than Wells. Just mentioning how Cameron is somewhat underrated because of the difficult park he plays in.

I agree that Cameron is a very good ballplayer - he's not really similar to Vernon as a hitter, though.

So far, you might say that Vernon is a young Joe Carter, but I sense that Mr. Wells's walks will increase as he ages (whereas Carter's didn't). Wells is not really an impatient hitter; he doesn't draw many walks yet because he's better at putting the bat on the ball than most hitters and so his ABs tend to end a little early.

J.P. said it best, I think, when he noted in spring training that Vernon has to trust that he can get into deep counts without getting into trouble. He's starting to do that more often this year and I'm betting Canadian Dollars to muffins that his walks/pa will be higher this year than last.

Canadian dollars to muffins! Good stuff.

Mmmmmmm ... stuff.

Shouldn't it be canadian dollars to donuts? The analogy would work so much better.

When everyone wakes up in the morning and wipes the sleepies from their peek-a-boos they'll find John Ford-Griffin tied for second in the Eastern League with 6 homeruns (hit 2 Tuesday) and also in second place in RBI's with 25. His batting average still stinks to high heaven considering his career numbers up 'til now, and he's striking out hand over fist, also at rates not at all like his career to date.

They'll also find under the tree that Alex Rios hit his 4th ding dong in sixty odd atbats, and walked once again, making it 10 base on balls in sixty odd AB's. He's on a nice pace considering he hit three homers and only walked 27 times in 456 atbats last season.

The reason is simple: I don't like doughnuts and much prefer oat bran muffins.

Thanks, Shane. As the official #1 booster of JFG and chief of the punctuation police, let me remind you (and others) -- his last name is Griffin and his first name is John-Ford, as in Stagecoach. I may have to upgrade my "Olerud with more speed" comparison to include a bit more power, too. Getting back to P.G., I found this Diamond Note interesting:

Jays ownership is pushing for MLB to return to a balanced schedule, which evens out the playing field for small-market teams playing in divisions dominated by big-market clubs, a problem for the Jays, Devil Rays, Rockies, Padres, etc. Almost everyone wanted the unbalanced schedule, but it has its drawbacks, including making the schedule a major part of won-lost percentage and hence the wild-card races.

It's also a huge issue for the Rangers. While he's at it, perhaps Mr. Godfrey could campaign for the end of interleague play. He can quote Joe Sheehan for support, from ESPN.com last year on the eve of the annual farce:

The unbalanced schedule already screws up the wild-card race, so that's a lost cause. However, the gerrymandered interleague schedule of 2002 may play a role in determining the division winners. Some teams are playing much easier interleague schedules than the teams they're battling with within their division, and in cases where races may come down to a game or two, that could be the deciding factor.

Sheehan pointed out that the Red Sox were about to play six against the Braves, while the Yankees faced the Mets, and warned of that injustice tilting the balance in the AL East. Well, Boston's 1-5 mark against Atlanta and 5-13 overall record vs. the NL (the Yankees were 11-7) wasn't entirely responsible for their 10.5 game divisional deficit, but it probably cost them a playoff spot, as the Angels, also six games better than the Sox in interleague play, captured the wild card by exactly that margin.

Look at just one of this year's inequities: The A's "natural rival" (the Giants) gives them six very tough games, and they play the four strongest NL East teams, missing the Mets. Seattle, on the other hand, has their legendary "time zone rivalry" with the nearby Padres, and face the Mets instead of the Marlins. Half of the Mariners' 18 interleague games are significantly easier than Oakland's. Again, this could affect a close divisional or league playoff race, and for what? Some extra cash in the owners' pockets, because suckers like me go to see Bonds (last year) or Sosa (June 13-15) in so-called American League games. I'm sure the Jays pitchers are excited about hitting in St. Louis, Cincinnati and Montreal, but I don't look forward to that spectacle.

I love the unbalanced schedule. That said, the only 'race" it negatively affects, really, is the Wild Card race.

So when MLB expand to 32 teams and we have two leagues with four divisions of four teams each, the Wild Card can go away, we still have eight teams in the playoffs and each division winner is really the best team in that division.

Hoo-ha on this "third-best team in baseball didn't make the playoffs" podunk horse-hockey. If the stRangers finish 94-68 behind BOTH Oakland and Seattle because they couldn't beat and finish ahead of those precise teams, then go home and play golf, Chan Ho.

P.S. Please note that above I used "hoo-ha," and "podunk" and "horse-hockey" in the same sentence. The literary gauntlet is thrown.

Kelvim lifetime with the bases empty: 1.80 ERA. Kelvim with runners aboard: 8.16 ERA.

And, since Kelvim's been in the bullpen, isn't that number even worse than it looks (!) because of all the inherited runners he wouldn't be penalized for?

Kelvim lifetime with the bases empty: 1.80 ERA. Kelvim with runners aboard: 8.16 ERA.

Now, wait a minute.

Isn't this essentially like saying a higher percentage of a batter's career RBIs come with men on base?

I mean ... duh?

Tell me Escobar's career batting-average-against or better yet OPS-against with nobody on and with men on base, and that might -- might -- mean something.

Mick, you're quite right -- I missed that and I shouldn't have. Here are the splits in question:

Escobar 2000-2002

No runners on base: .243/.323/.397 (826 AB)
Runners on base: .242/.334/.390 (613 AB)
Runners in scoring position: .241/.354/.377 (374 AB)

There are differences, but they're neglible. I hereby retract my criticism.