Well clearly over the course of 162 games, you need to be lucky as well as good.  The Jays played very poor defence tonight at times. 

Not to rag on Troy because he's a warrior but he looked really awkard at third base, maybe favouring that elbow.  Pretty much zero lateral range and no ability to dive for a ball since coming back from injury.  He was playing in on a bunt situation, was expecting it, and just did not seem to have the flexibility to get down low to pick the ball and make the throw to first in one motion.  Instead he slows up and casually picks it up.  Two on, nobody out.  He may need to spend a few games at DH until he heals completely.

Vernon Wells, determined to hold the runner to a single instead lets it get completely by his glove to allow  him to get all the way to third.  Losing a hand to save a finger.

And then the 9th.  Figgins leads off with a check swing infield single to third, Glaus pulling Overbay off the bag.  Murphy gets a "bunt single" as Troy playing in for the bunt somehow doesn't make the play.  So far Speier hasn't really done anything wrong but with a lefty due up you have a couple of options.  Walk them loaded to set up a force at each base and hope Speier can get a grounder at a drawn in infielder.  Or bring in your dominant closer who owns lefties to a ridiculous degree to face a lefty in a sudden death situation with nobody out.  I mean this is the ballgame, it doesn't get any higher leverage than this. 

But because of some insane, illogical convention about not using your closer in a tie ballgame on the road, you of course use secret third option, Scott Downs, your long man and third lefty.  He falls behind 3-1 to his hitter.  He has to come in with a fastball, he does in a good spot on the inner half and Kennedy makes contact.  It's flared to left but because of the drawn in outfield it's an easy out and Figgins can't come home.

After that first out, bringing in Frasor over Ryan is a bit more defensible as Frasor threw very well in the first game of the series and you have righties due up.  Still, Ryan certainly tends to strikeout a lot more hitters than Frasor.  And I bet he does better against righties than Frasor has even when going well.  Cabrera pops up a thigh high curve over the plate and that one play saves the game for the Jays as it allows them to walk Guerrero and pitch to Salmon who can be handled if no mistakes are made.  Jason didn't make any.

But let's face it, tonight was as much dumb luck as it was a "clutch" performance.  Sometimes you need that over a long season in the face of headscratching moves.  I mean Mike Scoscia won the World Series and he called a suicide squeeze with a young power hitter at the plate.  No-one makes the right call 100% of the time.  And even the wrong call can work out often enough.

Who the heck is this young catcher Napoli? How come all anyone talked about the last few seasons was Jeff Mathis if this guy was in their system as well? I'm not a great judge of catcher D, but if it's even somewhat close to Molina's he should be getting a lot more playing time. Seemed like a very selective hitter. How old is he? Does he have the potential to start? Any info is appreciated.

I think that's what makes gv27 so engaging for me, is that he's much more like me than your typical play-by-play guy (as is Mike Wilner), and he lets his personality come out in the broadcast.  It makes me cringe sometimes, of course, because I know how callow it must seem to viewers who know more than me or who are older and less enthusiastic, less of a "fanboy" than I am.  But who cares?  I'd love to be the guy sitting with Rance and asking him for his insights.

It's refreshing to have a PBP guy who doesn't pretend to know it all.  It's even more refreshing to have a color man who doesn't pretend to know it all either.  Rance comments like he played... with humility, with understanding, and with care for the little things.

For those who watched the game on TV last night may have notice when Halladay almost beaned Vlad in the head (not a purpose pitch). I was anticipating the subsequent pitch a big 12 to 6 curveball starting inside and that didn't happen. The next pitch caught the outside part of the plate and Vlad hit it for a run scoring single. I haven't seen many of those big hooking curve balls coming from Halladay this year. Has anybody noticed the same thing?

The preacher asked her
And she said I do
The preacher asked me
And she said yes he does too
And the preacher said
I pronounce you 99 to life
Son she's no lady she's your wife

I can see both sides of the rance Mulliniks argument but how can you not like Lyle Lovett?

I love listening to Rance because he is the one commentator out of the rotating group who really provides some baseball insight.  His discussion of the approach to hitting Rodriguez last night in the 10th inning was fascinating as it played out with first the Rios at bat at then the Hill at bat.   As Rios stood looking at a 2-0 fastball (albeit in a good spot) there was an audible hrrmph from Mullinicks (he'd spent the last 30 seconds saying you needed to be aggressive with Rodriguez's fastball in hitting counts because his curve was essentially unhittable in other counts).  He then praised Hill for his aggressive first swing at a borderline fastball and commented on how that was the right approach - followed by Hill crushing the next fasball.   I felt like I was in the mind of a hitting coach at the time.   It was a very rare window into a true baseball mind as it happened.

Winning ugly is a mark of a good club.  It is entirely appropriate that the Photo of the Day is a completely unflattering shot of the Cat (who is usually reasonably photogenic). 

It would be nice if Gibbons could give the Dude a little more work, especially in Colorado against the righties.  It is likely that he will be needed later in the season, and he will perform better if he doesn't have to shake off the rust.  On the other hand, the time has come to pass the torch back from McDonald to Adams.  This team's success in 2006 will depend on the growth of Adams, Hill and Rios.  Rios has taken a step forward, and if one of Adams or Hill can, as well, this club has a reasonable chance to be right there in September.

Hindsight is 20-20, of course, but I'm glad that the Jays brought Frasor in and not Ryan. B.J. worked yesterday, so he was probably not good to go two innings; if the Jays had scored less than four in the top of an inning, they could then have brought him in to work the bottom of the inning and pick up the save.

As it is, things could not have worked out better: Frasor has shown that he can pitch in a close game, and Ryan is rested for the Colorado series.

See I've never understood this line of thinking.  When is it more important to have your best reliever who has been among the baseball leaders in strikeout rate over the last few years?  In a tie game situation where giving up even a medium flyball means the game is over and you lose?  Or in a situation where you have a lead of 1 to 3 runs and you have some margin for error without losing the game?

In other words, wouldn't you rather have Frasor pitching in a  situation where he can afford to give up a run or two rather than one where he can't afford to have the opposing hitter even make half decent contact?  Who cares if Ryan can't pitch in the save situation if you potentially lose the game before the situation even presents itself?  The Jays would have been fortunate even if they did call Ryan to get out of it as Glaus could not make two plays to lead off the inning.  But just because it worked out against steep odds doesn't make it logical not to call on Ryan there.

I find it funny that Gibbons is getting lambasted in this thread over his decision not to use Ryan in the 9th last night. A recent article (I believe over at BP, I will have to try and find it) recently illustrated that over the course of the last two seasons, Gibbons has used his closer in more unorthodox situations than any other manager in the game by a wide margin.

Without the advantage of "Being John Gibbons", and with the question not having been broached, no one outside of the Jays coaching staff probably knows for certain why the Downs-Frasor sequence was the choice du' jour. Perhaps it was based on pitcher/batter splits or perhaps it was just a hunch. Regardless, I have no problem extending the benefit of the doubt to a manager that has proved more innovative than sterotypical with his closers.

Railing against the decision without knowing the basis for that decision is pointless. Would Scioscia's usage of K-Rod in a tie game in the tenth inning be lauded as logical or inspired in this thread; and if so how did that work out for him?

1. NFH does great game reports after a few days of sleep deprivation caused by west coast games and little early risers.
2. Lyle Lovett is the rally monkey for the Blue Jays.
   

Lyle Lovett is the rally monkey for the Blue Jays.

Monkey might be little harsh but that is one sorry lookin' dude!

If Scoscia believes K-Rod is his best reliever then it absolutely makes sense for him to pitch in a ballgame where next run likely wins.  He did perfectly fine the first inning and could only record one out in the second inning though he K'ed Rios in a big situation.  I don't think it's a bad thing to lose with your best.  Although Shields statistically has been a better pitcher this year and it may have made more sense to go with him for another inning or two before calling on K-Rod.  This wasn't a great game for Scioscia either.

But if Ryan wasn't available to come in then why was he completely warmed up and ready to come in should the game have been a save situation?  Why was he being saved for a lower leverage situation while leaving a more difficult situation to lesser relievers?  I'm just saying this doesn't make logical sense.  Ryan would have come into the game to get a "save" had the Jays scored less than 4 runs.  But why would he be needed more in that situation than in the 9th?

... Funny Aaron, re-listening to your radio clip reminds me of the painful hours spent in traffic jams on Leslie for two years before I got my downtown job. ;-)

Anyway, William Houston, the Globe & Mail media guy, had a column in Wednesday's Globe (you may need to do a "William Houston" search in Google News instead of accessing the article directly via this link).  Jamie talks about how he views each of his partners: Tabler "the consummate pro", Fletcher "the funny man" and Mulliniks "the deep thinker".

Now, it's great to have booth diversity, but I feel that for all of Rance's knowledge, his humourlessness to me is as tiresome as Tabler's talkativeness.  I know Jamie's still a young guy, but it would be great to bring out some whimsy in Rance, some seriousness in Fletch and some studiousness in Tabler (if the latter is at all possible).  What I love about Mike Wilner is that he brings all three to the table, although in an easier and less-pressurized format (JaysTalk post game and open mike show as opposed to in-game commentary).

BTW, I'm impressed at all you Bauxites who posted at 3:00 AM; I fell asleep on the couch after the Jays scored their 4th run. Thursday's are especially tough during work weeks and accumulated sleep deprivation from the two previous late night games.

Fun with schedules....

The Jays have lost back-to-back games only twice this season, and not at all since May 1. Imagine if they'd had a reliable strating rotation.

They're just about through their brutal opening schedule, too. Six of their remaining 12 games in May are against teams with better records than them (the BoSox and ChiSox). In June, only 6 of their 27 games are against teams with better records, and I'm not at all convinced the Tigers and Mets are better than the Blue Jays.

The Yankees and Red Sox will have a similar run, of course, but the Jays could still hit Canada Day with a .600 winning percentage by going 24-15 in that span. With 20 of those 39 games against sub-.500 teams, that's the time for the Jays to make a move.

It was not a save situation, hence no Ryan.  I think it's as simple as that.

Chuck, I don't think this is fair or accurate and I disagree strongly with it.  B.J. has been stretched out on several occasions, as you acknowledge, and he's mopped up with some large leads.  But on four occasions already this year, he's been used without a lead -- three times to preserve close deficits (vs TB, BOS and NYY), plus the Boston game in which he pitched the ninth and tenth of a 6-6 game.

Believe me, I also wanted to see B.J., especially when he called for Downs.  And this move is definitely open to context-specific criticism -- hell, it was the wrong move.  But Gibbons has more than earned the right not to labeled too dumb or too encumbered by usage conventions such that the thought of bringing in B.J. Ryan didn't occur to him.  The next time he enters in a tie game, will Gibbons get credit?  And the time after that, when he doesn't enter in a tie game, will Gibbons again suddenly become an unthinking slave to the save?

My point is that Gibby is, manifestly, open to non-traditional use of his closer.  His track record this season proves it.

Sorry, they've lost consecutive games three times. But none since May Day.

Rance has always been a serious kind of guy.  I remember games where his teammates would love to give him a hard time after he did something significant and he could sometimes be caught rolling his eyes or staring skywards as if he was dealing with children (though that probably wasn't far off the mark in some cases).  I actually find him the most fun to listen to because he really seems aware of the game situation and makes fairly relevant comments rather than providing the stock baseball answer.  If it means we miss out on a bit of banter I'm willing to live with it.

At some point, Frasor would have to face a high-pressure situation, and you'd rather find out sooner than later if he can do it.  It was a crazy game, you'd split the series so far, Ryan had worked the night before, why not throw Frasor in to see if he's got his stuff back?  And if things don't work out and he loses it, well, now somebody else will be your number three guy.

I agree that at some point Frasor will have to face some pressure situations if he's going to pitch regularly.  But there are degrees of pressure situations.  If you're trying to compete against two powerful teams in your division you want to lock up every win you can.  Now is not the time to experiment when you don't have to.  And he didn't go to Frasor first, he went to Downs who was very lucky to record that out the way he did.

One night ago, Janssen had completed 8 innings of two hits, no walks on 88 pitches and had a 3 run lead.  Gibbons could have said "now's a good time to see if this rookie has the stuff to pitch a complete game".  But he didn't.  He played it safe and gave Ryan a save in a relatively easy situation.

One night later in a much more difficult situation, with the game and the three game series on the line, Gibbons decides that Ryan won't pitch in the biggest jam of the game for the Jays?  Probably the biggest jam they've faced all year?  Now is the time to see if Downs and Frasor have the stuff?  I don't buy that.  I think Ryan wasn't in there because Gibbons did not want to use him more than one inning and wanted to save him for a save situation which never came.  Because if Ryan entered that situation and managed to wriggle out, he might have eventually had to give a save opportunity to a pitcher not named Ryan which is apparently unthinkable.  Much better to take an immense risk in losing the game now.

Or put another way, John Gibbons chose to run across a busy highway with both eyes closed rather than choose to do so with one eye open.  You don't want to find yourself in either situation to tell the truth but if you do, I would think you would give yourself every opportunity you can to survive.  Running across that highway with both eyes closed could be considered ballsy or brave but I think most would consider it for what it is...insane.  Whether you actually made it across or not is not the point.

There is a difference between a pressure situation in a tie game and a pressure situation where if the hitter hits the ball more than 150 feet the game is over.  This isn't about trusting Frasor or Speier or anything like that.  It's about doing the most logical thing to keep your team in the game in any given situation.

There's a runner 90 feet away and nobody out.  If he advances in any fashion the game is over and you lose.  The easiest way to prevent him advancing is through strikeouts.  You have a guy who over the last three years has been one of the two or three best strikeout relievers in baseball.  If this is not his situation then what is?

Let's put it another way.  Instead of that flare out Downs got off Kennedy, what if the ball had arced one way or another and fallen in for the game winning hit.  Are you telling me you would not be wondering why Scott Downs was facing that sudden death situation while the most dominating lefthanded pitcher in baseball was sitting down hoping his team didn't lose the game on the next pitch?  Or if Cabrera had hit that curveball a couple of millimetres higher and and sent it over the drawn in outfield for the game winning hit instead of a pop up you wouldn't be wondering why the Jays best reliever by a country mile was watching while lesser relievers could not get out of an immensely difficult situation?

The Jays got lucky, EXTREMELY lucky that they got out of that situation and the above two questions were not even more front and centre in this topic than they are now.  There was a game situation which cried out for them using the very best pitcher they had and they did not use him just in case an easier game situation came up later on where they WOULD use him.  This is just extremely bizarro logic.

Ryan wasn't tired.  He's pitched sporadically recently with the starters going deep many times.  He pitched yesterday's save and was fully prepared to come in and pitch an inning today if and only if he was going to get an S next to his name at the end of the game.  Why does using him when you absolutely need strikeouts constitute wearing him out in May while using him if the Jays get the lead does not constitute wearing him out?

And as Ryan said, games won in May count equally to games won in September.  Every game you don't win now means another one you have to win later in the year.  Every game you lose now makes your job that much harder as the season progresses.  This is as much crunch time as later in the year is...if the Jays miss the post-season by a couple of games they can easily look back on that 0-7 start by Towers and wonder.

Relief issues aside for a second (BJ should have been strolling out when the door opened and Downs emerged), I enjoyed reading this quote (obtained from the Yahoo recap):

"John was a little careful with the middle of their lineup," pitching coach Bud Black said. "He pitched Troy overly careful and he was careful with Wells also. I think John knew that he was going to be a tight game with Halladay, so he tried to make -- I wouldn't say perfect pitches, but he was really thinking about not leaving the ball in the middle of the plate. And a lot of times when you do that, you end up coming out of your game a little bit."

Wow, he's actually talking about the middle of the Jays lineup. Its been a few years.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=260518103

Well if he was smart he'd use the spectacle right away because the traffic immediately in front of him was full speed and dense.  If he doesn't make it past that very difficult traffic flow it won't matter that he saved his asset.  A dead man has no use for a spectacle.  And there's a very good chance that the traffic will be lighter later on...maybe not much lighter but it would be very hard to find another patch just as difficult to navigate. 

Sometimes you have to ask yourself, is it possible to find a situation any worse for me than this one is right now?  It might be ambiguous in the traffic situation but last night was not ambiguous.  Runner on third, nobody out, when that runner means the end of the game with no chance to tie, is the worst tight game situation you are ever going to find yourself in in the game of baseball.  If your best asset should not be used there then I'm very confused about how the game works.

This has been an enjoyable discussion.  I still believe, though, that although I thought this was the wrong move, I agree with the sentiment that John Gibbons deserves the benefit of the doubt as a free-thinker.  I can't accept the premise that he wanted to use him but felt he had to save him for a potential save situation.  Gibbons knows better than to fall into that trap, and it's simply not realistic to assume that he doesn't.

By the way, King Ryan, the blame's on me.  I am unfortunately unable to do the Advance Scout column (or any work as a Batter's Box author) this year.  My apologies to the community.

Vlad has just been intentionally walked to load up the bases with two outs, as Halladay tries to work his way out of a jam; Tim Salmon pops one foul on the first base side, and as Overbay runs for it, a press photographer gets out of the way. The guy has a radio transmitter used for triggering a remote flash on his camera -- what the hell is he doing with that?