Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

In a column at Baseball Prospectus yesterday, Joe Sheehan was highly critical of Jays’ General Manager J.P. Ricciardi.

I am not here to “take sides” on this, save for one of Sheehan’s statements that I will present research on below.



Sheehan makes some valid points (that 2004 appears to have been a turning point in Ricciardi’s style), some specious ones (that 2007 is a lost season – it’s still June, Joe), and in at least one instance appears to be arguing with himself (“It’s not the first time Ricciardi has made big contract commitments that didn’t produce much value. In the Spring of 2003, he signed reigning Rookie of the Year Eric Hinske and center fielder Vernon Wells to five year contracts that covered their arbitration seasons… I praised the deals and I’d do so again”)

I have my own sore points with the way the team is constructed relative to the rosters of Ricciardi’s early years, especially with regard to patching holes. Jason Phillips is not the new Greg Myers, Royce Clayton is not the new Mike Bordick, Jason Smith is not the new Frank Menechino, and Howie Clark is not the new Howi… oh wait.

Here is the statement of Sheehan's that gets to me: "... a peek at the 25-man roster shows just Aaron Hill, Casey Janssen, and Shaun Marcum as farm products acquired since 2002 having a positive impact in big league ballgames."

Those three players have been very good this season, Joe, and 2002 is not that far in the past. Most teams are getting very little impact from farm products acquired since 2002. How many of MLB's 30 teams are getting more positive impact from such players? One would assume from Sheehan's statement that the answer is at the very least 15 (he did say "just") and more likely in the mid-20s. The real answer? 7.

Here are the criteria for eligibility in our little study here: the player must have made his major league debut with his current team (or else they wouldn't have been "farm products"), no straight-to-MLB Japanese imports (again, "farm products") and the player must have been acquired (traded for, drafted, signed, etc.) since 2002. For "positive impact in big league ballgames", we'll use Win Shares Above Bench, from Hardballtimes (only players with 1 or more WSAB in 2007).

I'll present the table to you without further comment, except to say that it measures precisely what Sheehan described, but shows that in fact the Jays' kids are nothing to sneeze at.

[Edited to add: I should have mentioned that I wasn't really trying to prove anything about the Jays five-year track record of player development. Frankly, tallying up the WSAB of all the qualifiers in mid-June doesn't really tell us very much, if anything, about the managerial acumen in the front office. It's only relevant to what Sheehan wrote, farm products acquired since 2002 having a positive impact in big league ballgames.]

Team Qualifying Players WSAB
Arizona Pena, Jackson, Snyder, Owings, Reynolds, Drew, Quentin, Young 19
Detroit Granderson, Verlander, Bonderman, Miller, Zumaya 17
Milwaukee Fielder, Villanueva, Weeks, Braun, Gwynn 17
Cleveland Sizemore, Betancourt, Garko, Perez, Mastny 16
Tampa Bay Upton, Young, Kazmir, Sonnanstine 16
Los Angeles (N) Martin, Billingsley, Kemp, Ethier, Abreu, Broxton, Loney 16
Washington Church, Zimmerman, Bergmann, Cordero, Flores, Rivera 14
Toronto Hill, Janssen, Marcum, Thigpen, Frasor, Vermilyea 13
Oakland Swisher, Blanton, Street, Buck 13
Seattle Sherrill, Betancourt, Morrow, O'Flaherty, Hernandez, Green 13
Los Angeles (A) Willits, Moseley, Saunders, Weaver 12
Minnesota Neshek, Guerrier, Bonser, Perkins, Bartlett, Slowey 12
Atlanta Francouer, James, Moylan, McCann, Saltalamacchia, Escobar 12
Colorado Francis, Spilborghs, Tulowitzki, Iannetta 10
Boston Pedroia, Papelbon 9
Chicago (N) Hill, Marshall, Pagan, Fontenot, Cherry 9
Florida Uggla, Willis, De Aza, Sanchez, Olsen 9
Chicago (A) Jenks, Danks, Logan 8
Kansas City Teahen, Buck, Soria 8
Pittsburgh Gorzelanny, Capps 8
Baltimore Burres, Loewen, Ray, Markakis 7
Philadelphia Hamels, Bourn 7
San Francisco Cain, Ortmeier, Lewis, Correia 6
Cincinnati Hamilton, Coutlangus, Belisle, McBeth 5
Houston Pence, Scott 5
Texas Laird, Francisco, Kinsler 4
New York (N) Smith, Feliciano 3
St. Louis Wainwright 3
New York (A) Hughes 1
San Diego Greene 1

Hold on a Second, Joe | 89 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mick Doherty - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 03:50 PM EDT (#170133) #

I was going to make a smart-a$$ comment about how the teams "above" TOR in that table haven't exactly won any World Series recently, and while that's true ... DET has been to one, CLE is good every year and MIL looks like a playoff lock (?) this year.

Never mind. Good study!

Mark - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 04:06 PM EDT (#170135) #
Good Work!

When you take into account Jackson and Bush led directly to Overbay and Adam Peterson led indirectly to Accardo it has been a job well done.
ayjackson - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#170136) #
Did the Jays turn Lincecum into a benchline player?
Dr B - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 04:20 PM EDT (#170138) #

Baseball prospectus used love J.P Ricciardi and would apologise for everything he did, until he started splashing out on big budget items like A.J. Burnett, and then he started hosing him down with gasoline whatever he did. They were so down on Ricciardi, Chris Kahrl attributed the sale of Erik Hinske's contract to collusion between the Jays and the Red Sox to try and beat the Yankees! I mean, I like Erik Hinske as much as the next guy, but please! Baseball Prospectus tries very hard, and mostly succeeds, in putting cold hard facts ahead of opinion, but they are human, and it would be a pretty dull site if they didn't give their colour commentary sometimes.

To follow your point about the number of contributers from the farm to the major league club, it may be a bit of a stretch to include Thigpen, and Vermilyea who have done little for the major league club so far, but then again you could include players like Zack Jackson who was traded for major league talent.

Since, I don't have the evidence to back it up, I would speculate that it is the quality of the players that come through the farm system rather than the quantity anyway. So far, the impact players from now in the majors from the blue jays farm system have come from the previous regime (plenty of fairly obvious examples), but perhaps its still too early to tell. I do have the suspicion that getting rid of farm director Tim Wilken was one of Ricciardi's worst moves.

Barry Bonnell - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 04:20 PM EDT (#170139) #

He also refers to the Jays as an "aging roster."

Our outfield is set for at least another 5 years and Lind/Wells and Rios are all under 30.

Halladay is only 30 and Marcum and McGowan are 25/26. That's 3/5 of the rotation right there.

 The bullpen is set for a number of years and is very young as well.

ayjackson - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 04:24 PM EDT (#170140) #

Since, I don't have the evidence to back it up, I would speculate that it is the quality of the players that come through the farm system rather than the quantity anyway.

Is this analysis not a qualitative one?  Does WSAB not attempt to measure the quality of contribution from a player?  The evidence is right in front of you, n'est-ce pas?

Dave Till - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 04:34 PM EDT (#170141) #
Here's what Baseball Prospectus (admittedly, not Sheehan) said about Burnett and Ryan in the 2007 edition of the book. (These are excerpts.)

Burnett: His control numbers were the best of his career. And his mechanics improved in the second half, as he had more time to work with pitching coach Brad Arnsberg. Considering the inflation in the system, Burnett could well provide as much value over the remaining four years of his deal as any pitcher that was on this winter's market.

Ryan: If Ryan isn't the best relief pitcher in baseball, he at least belongs in the conversation. There is no mention of injury risk.

This feels like classic second-guessing to me.

I don't have a subscription, so I didn't read the whole article. But I wonder: is he Ricciardi-bashing because he secretly wants a job as a Toronto baseball columnist?
CaramonLS - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 06:36 PM EDT (#170146) #
Perhaps we could have a little box with "percentage of college players taken" tacked on to the end of that.

Sheehan might be overly critical of JP, but for the most part, what you see is what you get from the prospects because of the college heavy drafting style - other teams still have significant highschool talent which hasn't broken in yet.  While the Jays, for the most part, do not.
Dr B - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 07:06 PM EDT (#170148) #

You may be right with WSAB. I'm no expert these measures. But if my understanding is correct, doesn't it mean by this measure that two players with WSAB of 1 are equivalent to one player of WSAB 2 if they play the same number of games? But fairly obviously, two players take up two slots in your lineup, a major difference. Furthermore two players of WSAB 1 may take up less salary than one of WSAB 2, which may itself have side-effects. Therefore the two situations are not equivalent. So I don't know if I can answer the question whether quantity is better than quality using WSAB alone.

That said, I may have completely the wrong idea of how WSAB is computed.

Ryan Day - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 07:08 PM EDT (#170149) #
Sure, but Sheehan's the one who picked the timeframe.

And really, "what you see is what you get" seems a very pessimistic assessment of players like Drew, Quentin, Verlander, Miller, Zimmerman, Cordero, and Hill.

CaramonLS - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 07:54 PM EDT (#170150) #
Perhaps I should have been more clear Mr. Day.  I meant for example, of any college players drafted specifically in those earlier years such as 02/03, most of them, if they were/are going to make it to the show, have already made it - or should at the very least be in AAA, if not, they aren't much in the way of prospects.

John Northey - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 08:16 PM EDT (#170152) #
How to measure a GM outside of playoffs and regular season wins? 

BP was going with farm developed which can also be flipped into draft developed.

2002 - Jays have 3 guys who've made the majors, David Bush being the best so far
Also in 2002... (thanks B-R draft thing).
Angels - 2 players - Joe Saunders 10-3 4.40 ERA, Howie Kendrick 405 AB's 732 OPS at 2B
Astros - Just one guy has made it, barely (1 IP last year)
A's - 2 pitchers, 4 hitters (Moneyball draft) - Nick Swisher, Blanton, Mark Teahen
Atlanta - Jeff Francoeur,Brian McCann, Chuck James, plus another in majors
Brewers - Fielder, 2 pitchers
Cardinals - Brad Thompson (16th round)
Cubs - Rich Hill (4th round)
D-Rays - BJ Upton, 2 cannon fodder pitchers
Diamondbacks - 2 pitchers, 1 hitter, none too impressive
Dodgers - 2 pitchers, 3 hitters Loney, Broxton, Russell Martin
Giants - 6 guys made it, Matt Cain & Hensley are the best
Cleveland - 2 guys, Jeremey Guthrie is doing well for Baltimore
Seattle - 1 player, 14 AB's
Marlins - 6 guys, 2 solid pitchers and a 1/2 decent outfielder
Mets - 1 - Scott Kazmir
Nats/Expos - 3 pitchers, none of note yet
Orioles - 5 guys, 2 useful pitchers and 3 roster fillers
San Diego - 2 players - Khalil Greene and a 1B who had an OPS of 603
Phillies - 3 guys, Cole Hamels the only one of note - 18-11 3.97 ERA
Pirates - 4 guys, Matt Capps only noteworthy one at 12-4 3.50  ERA

Gotta go, so someone else can fill in the rest.

Looks to me like the Jays didn't do anything special with that draft though, but were not duds like many make them out to be.

Leigh - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 09:02 PM EDT (#170153) #
I should have mentioned that I wasn't really trying to prove anything about the Jays five-year track record of player development.  Frankly, tallying up the WSAB of all the qualifiers in mid-June doesn't really tell us very much, if anything, about the managerial acumen in the front office.  It's only relevant to what Sheehan wrote, farm products acquired since 2002 having a positive impact in big league ballgames.

In fact, I'm going to add this little rider to the article.
Ryan Day - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 11:03 PM EDT (#170155) #
One interesting item from this examination: The Diamondbacks have employed a very similar drafting strategy to the Jays.

In 2002, they drafted our very own Sergio Santos out of high school. Since then, they've only taken one high school player in the first round - Justin Upton, with the #1 pick in 2005. They haven't taken a high school pitcher in the first round since 1999.

As a result, most of their roster is composed of college draftees, and some pretty good ones: Quentin, Jackson, Drew, Tracy, Owings, and even Webb (who was, amusingly, chosen in the 8th round in 2000 - the same round as Dontrelle Willis)

And they're doing pretty good: Second in their division, and a well-regarded farm system. So perhaps the problem isn't that the Jays are focusing on college players, but that they're focusing on the wrong college players.

Chris DH - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 11:35 PM EDT (#170157) #

I have a subscription to Baseball Prospectus and have been buying their book since 2000.  In my opinion, they have been very pessimistic towards the Blue Jays for several years now - long before Keith Law left the Jays.  I actually thought their was some animosity between BP and Keith Law (or BP was trying to not show any favoritism and was thus especially critical of the Jays).

I couldnt believe the article  - I was irate.  I immediately went to review the draft history of the Sox and Yanks.  Granted they both may have players with more upside but overall impact to-date at the major league level to-date? Jays.

They were very pessimistic going into 2006 but really didnt have any reason for the solid season.  The Jays were continually ranked as one of the top 10 teams all season...

Earlier in the season Joe was hoping the Jays would throw McGowan, Marcum and Janssen in the rotation and not waste time with Okha/Zambrano/Thomson.  Well, it appears he got his wish but still isnt happy...

I may have to rethink extending my subscription.

C.

 

Magpie - Tuesday, June 19 2007 @ 11:57 PM EDT (#170158) #
As a former BPer he is likely to chat with other BPers and he certainly has not had a lot good to say about JP.  I think the change in philosphy and ouster of Law likely explains a lot of the BP criticism.

"Ouster" makes it sound like Law lost some kind of power struggle, which is sort of a weird concept. Kind of like the Cable Guy losing a power struggle with Ted Rogers. At any rate, Law wasn't ousted at all - he quit, and went back to doing what he was doing before. Not for BP, of course, but for... well, the competition, I guess.

I've said this before, but the notion that Ricciardi was ever some kind of stats-oriented computer geek GM was never remotely true. Like Pat Gillick, Ricciardi's background is almost entirely in scouting. He is way, way more a traditional GM - and always was - than was ever clearly understood. Maybe by Law himself, for all I know.
Pistol - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 08:32 AM EDT (#170161) #
In my opinion, they have been very pessimistic towards the Blue Jays for several years now - long before Keith Law left the Jays. 

I'm not sure all of BP needs to be lumped together.  There's a lot of people that write for them and they don't hold the same opinions.

Having said that, Sheehan has been knocking the Jays for awhile now, and well before Law left the Jays.  Also, I'm fairly certain that Sheehan hasn't been involved with the annual book for a couple years now (I remember I really liked the 2006 edition and then realized that Sheehan wasn't in the author section) so if there's a disconnect between the book and him that's probably why.

Mike Green - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 09:54 AM EDT (#170163) #
It should be noted that the teams ahead of the Jays in Leigh's study generally had higher draft positions than them in 2002-03, and those behind them generally had lower draft positions than them in 2002-03.  A cursory reading of the study might suggest that Milwaukee or Tampa Bay had done a better job of drafting than New York or Boston.  It shows nothing of the kind, and I am sure that Leigh was not implying this to be the case.

There are teams that had a good draft placing which fared poorly- Jim Bowden in Cincinnati had a spectacularly bad draft in 2002 and a pretty stinky one in 2003.  Allard Baird's drafts in Kansas City haven't worked out well. The Dodgers did very well despite drafting late (with their best selection a 17th round Canadian catcher...ouch).

Here's a contest for you.  Which team had the best draft year ever?  My nominee is Jim Campbell and the 76 Tigers.  After drafting Lance Parrish in 74 and Lou Whitaker in 75, Campbell nabbed Alan Trammell, Dan Petry and Jack Morris in the 76 draft.  If he had been able to sign 7th round draftee Ozzie Smith, that would have made for one crowded middle infield in the early 80s. 

Manhattan Mike - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 10:21 AM EDT (#170165) #

In comparing Toronto's success since 2002 to New York's and Boston's, I would not count Hughes as a "success" since he was one of the high school pitchers that many other teams could not afford to take a risk on. It would be akin to giving kudos to the Tigers for drafting Rick Porcello - someone that came their way not because of quality scouting but because of signability concerns.

That being said, your methodology leaves out Tyler Clippard (9th round, 2003) and Jeff Karstens (19th round, 2003) as recent draftees that have played on the Yankees. And, for the Red Sox, you didn't mention Jon Lester (2nd round, 2002).  These guys are just as relevant as Vermilyea.

I also wonder whether a guy like David Murphy, the 1st rounder for the Sox in the '03 draft, would have been called up to the big leagues by now had he been drafted by the Jays, given that the Jays are, as a smaller budget team, going to have to dip into their farm system more readily than the Yankees or the Red Sox.

What are your thoughts on Dominican players as it pertains to this analysis?

Pistol - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 10:35 AM EDT (#170168) #
I would not count Hughes as a "success" since he was one of the high school pitchers that many other teams could not afford to take a risk on. It would be akin to giving kudos to the Tigers for drafting Rick Porcello - someone that came their way not because of quality scouting but because of signability concerns.

Phil Hughes was signed for slot money - $1.4 million. 
Pistol - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 10:38 AM EDT (#170169) #
That being said, your methodology leaves out Tyler Clippard (9th round, 2003) and Jeff Karstens (19th round, 2003) as recent draftees that have played on the Yankees. And, for the Red Sox, you didn't mention Jon Lester (2nd round, 2002).  These guys are just as relevant as Vermilyea.

The methodology is based on WSAB this year.  Clippard's at 0 and Karstens is at -1.  Lester is in AAA.
Leigh - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 10:38 AM EDT (#170170) #
All good points, Manhattan Mike, if I were trying to measure draft strength or anything else relevant to the real world.  However, I was only deconstructing Sheehan's statement and replying with figures that fit the criteria that he set out.  I don't think that the information that I have provided in this little study is relevant to anything other than Sheehan's statement.
Mike Green - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 10:58 AM EDT (#170171) #
farm products acquired since 2002

Hill, Janssen, Marcum, Thigpen, Vermilyea, milk, strawberries, cheese, lettuce...Ricciardi has had a good 5 years after all.
Jordan - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:00 AM EDT (#170172) #

Good chart and good research, Leigh -- thanks. Looking at Jason Frasor, it's interesting to remember that the Jays acquired him for Jayson Werth, a player whom I and others thought (incorrectly, as it turned out) would be a real big-league contributor. Turning Werth and Shea Hillenbrand into Frasor and Jeremy Accardo have been two examples of very smart dealing by the GM.

My take on Ricciardi is that sometime around late 2004, early 2005, JP stopped listening to people who didn't fully share his views on the ballclub. And not just within the organization, either. Maybe The Year From Hell hardened him, or the local media finally got to him, or maybe he always fully believed in his vision to the exclusion of others. He is, as Magpie says, the archetypal traditional GM, and I'm not deeply enamoured of traditional GMs.

Mike D - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:23 AM EDT (#170173) #

Great work, Leigh.  One missing element here (Sheehan may or may not be missing it, too) would be the farm products since 2002 that have been used as effective trade bait to help the club. 

Granted, this might overstate the value of the Red Sox, Yankees and Mets' prospects, since those teams are attractive trading partners primarily for their ability to absorb salary.  It's not like the Phillies traded Abreu because they were blown away by C.J. Henry.

Mike D - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:25 AM EDT (#170174) #
Dr. B made my point earlier, of course, and more succinctly...
Mike D - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:27 AM EDT (#170175) #

I have my own sore points with the way the team is constructed relative to the rosters of Ricciardi’s early years, especially with regard to patching holes. Jason Phillips is not the new Greg Myers, Royce Clayton is not the new Mike Bordick, Jason Smith is not the new Frank Menechino, and Howie Clark is not the new Howi… oh wait.

Amen.  Ricciardi has been a horrible hole-patcher over the last four seasons -- surely one of the very worst in baseball.

Mick Doherty - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#170176) #

Hill, Janssen, Marcum, Thigpen, Vermilyea, milk, strawberries, cheese, lettuce...

Which begs the question ... do you want the rookie 20-game winner who doesn't make the bigs until he's 33? Or the HOF-talent OF with the attitude (and substance) problem(s)? Or the light-hitting OF who sounds like he might be quite a philosopher?

Conundrum wrapped in a riddle within a mystery ...

Mike Green - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:46 AM EDT (#170177) #
It kind of depends how you define hole-patching.  Bullpen weakness due to injury this year was nicely patched.  If you mean ensuring that there is an adequate bench, that has been a noticeable weakness of Ricciardi's, although "horrible" might be overstating it. There are certainly other GMs who have had problems in this area of at least equal magnitude.

Jim - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:49 AM EDT (#170178) #

You are what you are:

 

02: 78-84

03: 86-76

04: 67-94

05: 80-82

06: 87-75

07: 33-36

Total: 398-447

They have a barren farm system when you exclude the 07 draftees.  They have committed hundreds of millions of dollars in the near future.  They have made no progress since 2004. 

It's time for a whole new direction.  JP Riccardi is not the guy to topple Boston and New York.  That guy might not exist, but it's time to try and find him.

Mike Green - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:59 AM EDT (#170179) #
Or the light-hitting OF who sounds like he might be quite a philosopher?

I like my philosophers to be heavy-hitters like Nicola Ingarao.

I wonder if you do an all-philosopher Hall of Names.  Locke, Smith, Hume, Emerson, Whitman, Rand and Kant (if you stretch) have namesakes.  Plato, Socrates, Macchiavelli and Nietzsche don't.
Ryan Day - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 12:05 PM EDT (#170181) #

They have made no progress since 2004.

Like Sheehan, you picked a lousy time frame to prove your point. Going from 67-94 in 2004 to 80-82 in 2005, and 87-75 in 2006 sure looks like progress to me.

Barry Bonnell - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT (#170184) #

If there are any Bauxites who live out Ajax way I have a pair of very good tickets to tonights game that can be had for free. I get home from work about 5:30PM so they could be picked up then.

 

Jim - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 12:58 PM EDT (#170185) #

you picked a lousy time frame to prove your point

It hasn't been quite as unlucky as 2004 was, but 2007 sure feels a lot like 2004 to me.  They peaked last year and still never threatened for a playoff spot.  At least we still have Baltimore to kick around.

 

Mick Doherty - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 01:31 PM EDT (#170186) #

I wonder if you do an all-philosopher Hall of Names.

Back in July of '03 ... been there, done that!

Mike Green - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 01:54 PM EDT (#170189) #
Thanks, Mick.  A little before my time here...



Mick Doherty - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:03 PM EDT (#170190) #

Not only that, but if you search BBRef for "Phil" you get 135 returns, including 27 guys with the family name "Phillips" and more than 100 with the first or middle name in some form.

A team of them would be the "Phil Awe, So Fars" of course.

CaramonLS - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:08 PM EDT (#170192) #
Like Sheehan, you picked a lousy time frame to prove your point. Going from 67-94 in 2004 to 80-82 in 2005, and 87-75 in 2006 sure looks like progress to me.

And what do you call 07 if we finish below .500?
Ryan Day - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:39 PM EDT (#170193) #
Right now, I'm calling it "horribly bad luck", but I'll otherwise withhold judgment 'til the season's actually over. There's been some very good and some very bad.
Jim - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#170194) #

Right now, I'm calling it "horribly bad luck",

In this case I'm leaning towards luck being the residue of design.

Mick Doherty - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#170195) #

Ooh, Jim -- quoting Branch Rickey? That's an impossible standard to hold ANY GM up to.

Radster - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:15 PM EDT (#170197) #
Jim - I'm no math whiz, but I'm not sure you're numbers add up.
Mike Green - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:19 PM EDT (#170198) #
My pocket calculator has the Jays at 431-447 during the period 2002-07. 
Frank Markotich - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:34 PM EDT (#170199) #
Jim included the 2007 losses but not the wins
MatO - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:38 PM EDT (#170200) #

Jim included the 2007 losses but not the wins

The 2007 season has been very frustrating but not that bad!

AWeb - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:52 PM EDT (#170201) #
The Jays have not been horribly unlucky, aside from the bullpen injuries, and how could the bullpen have gone much better in total than it has?

The pitching has been fine, and we all got what we wanted to start the year, which is one or more of the youngsters earning a starting job (Marcum, McGowan). Halladay missed 2 starts, Chacin getting injured was widely predicted, Burnett getting injured was not bad luck after the way he was used. But pitching hasn't been the problem anyway.

The offense: Glaus's nagging injuries were predictable, as was the gaping hole at SS. Zaun's poor performance and subsequent injury was bad luck perhaps, and Overbay (although the fillins at 1B have outhit him so far) and Reed Johnson as well, but Thomas and Wells haven't been notably unlucky, they just haven't been good enough.

The Jays were built to be a contending team if everything broke right, just like they have been for the last few years. Everything tends not to break right for entire years, though. Perhaps another GM couldn't do much better given the competition, but given the talent base and financial resources, I don't think JP has achieved anything notable.

Jim - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 04:15 PM EDT (#170203) #

The 2007 season has been very frustrating but not that bad!

My bad.  The fact that Howie Clark has come back into my life makes me no longer want to pass on the benefit of the doubt.  It's a tough job beating the Yankees and Red Sox.  JP hasn't been awful, there is some good and some bad.  I just don't see why anyone would have any confidence that he's going to ever get this team over the hump.  Why waste any more seasons hammering this home?

 

Ron - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 04:34 PM EDT (#170205) #

The fact there are still JP defenders out there (I’m not just talking about this site) amazes me. Can anybody here say with a straight face that the JP era is clearly better than the Gord Ash era? If so, why?

Blue Jay fans have been conditioned to accept mediocrity and it’s sad to see. JP is out of excuses and like I said before, he and Gibbons should have been fired in the off-season. I’m waiting any day for JP to say the Jays can’t contend in the AL East because he doesn’t have the same payroll that Brian Cashman has to work with. If by some miracle JP gets fired after this season, I feel sorry the new GM will have to take on the Wells and Thomas albatross contracts.

But with that said, I’m not really disappointed in the 2007 season. I said the Jays would be a sub .500 team all season and that’s what they have been.

ayjackson - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT (#170208) #

I've felt more optimism for the club over the last few years than I felt during the Ash years.  However, that is a Rogers-Interbrew thing more than an Ash-Ricciardi thing.  Ash and Ricciardi have both been average GMs, neither clearly better than the other.

I think Ash is much more likeable though, which probably plays a role in the Ricciardi bashing.

John Northey - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 05:14 PM EDT (#170209) #
OK lets compare the end of the Ash era to the current JP era.

End of Ash era was 2001
Jays finished 80-82, the 4th straight year they dropped in win total (not by much each year, but going down). We were on our 4th manager in 5 seasons (not counting the week of Mel Queen) and the 4th straight year of a 3rd place finish with two 5ths and a 4th before that.

Starting 9 had 1 player below 27 (DH Brad Fullmer at 26) but just one over 30 (Fletcher catching). 5 regulars were below 100 for OPS+ with just Delgado being strongly above at 141. On the bench only Chris Latham had a 100+ OPS+. Young guys such as Felipe Lopez, Cesar Izturis, Vernon Wells, and Josh Phelps were not getting chances to play while Chris Woodward was living on the bench. Lopez/Izturis/Woodward were not blocked by much either (Bush/Gonzalez middle infield going OPS+ of 85 & 76 with Jeff Frye getting playing time with his OPS+ of 63). Lopez got some time but at third base after Batista was dumped following a horrid 63 OPS+ 1/2 season.

On the mound Roy Halladay was the young hotshot but he was coming off his 10.64 ERA season. Escobar was the best starter probably but spent most of the season in the pen after flip flopping a lot the past few seasons (as he would continue to do as a Jay for 2 more years). No one on the staff was below 3 for ERA over more than 16 innings.

Paul Quantrill was the only guy at the All-Star game. The year before had Delgado, Batista (released), and David Wells (traded for an injured guy, Ash cried foul but failed to do a proper medical before doing the trade). Not a happy time.


JP Today
Jays finished 2nd last year, after climbing out of a horrid 2004 last place finish. 2 years of increasing wins (13 then 7). We are into the 3rd full season of the same manager with just 3 over JP's 6 seasons.

Starting 9 look old at the moment but we have 2 guys younger than Ash's best in Hill (25) and Lind (23) with Rios tied (26). 4 regulars are sub-100 OPS, Phillips (who won't be the full-time catcher come seasons end), Clayton, Lind, and Wells. I doubt anyone expects Lind & Wells to stay down there all year, and if Lind doesn't pick it up Reed Johnson should get above 100 quickly when he returns. 2 guys are at 125+ for OPS+, Glaus and Rios. The bench has Stairs (128), Howie Clark (120) and Thigpen (100) to go with McDonald (85) and Zaun (51..ugh).

Pitching we have Halladay (established as one of the best), many injured guys, then hope in McGowan & Marcum. The age 25 crew has been very hopeful and not abused (this year) ala Ash's crew (Accardo, Janssen, McGowan, Marcum). The pen is scary good while missing it's ace closer, the rotation hopeful.

There are a few guys who could make the AS team (depending on who else is going). Of the 5 guys to make it last year we have Wells slumping, BJ injured, Rios/Glaus on the edge of going again, and Halladay.



To me the hope this year is much, much higher than at the end of Ash's reign. The good stuff in the minors under Ash was being left to rot after he gained a fear of prospects. JP tries not to mix them in at times, but gives in a heck of a lot easier rather than chase down new retreads mid-season. Is JP the best? No. Has he got things going in the right direction? I think so.
Warren - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 06:18 PM EDT (#170211) #
How much of the WSAB value is Frasor, and where do the Jays fall on that list with him removed? It would seem that whether or not he is classified as a "farm product" could be a big part of the difference... given that Joe didn't mention him, it seems likely that he wasn't labeling him that way.
Leigh - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 06:49 PM EDT (#170212) #
Warren, that was just my interpretation of the criteria, mainly because he said "farm products acquired", which indicates to me that he meant acquired in any sense, or else he would have simply said "drafted"; and Frasor was a farm product when acquired.  In any event, under the definition that would exclude Frasor, the Jays would (I think) actually improve in their ranking by shooting past Cleveland and Detroit (for whom Sizemore and Bonderman, respectively, would no longer count because they were acquired the same way that Frasor was).

In any event, I wasn't trying to be relevant to any real standard... just trying to put numbers to Sheehan's assertion.

Warren - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 07:04 PM EDT (#170213) #
Bonderman yes I'd agree, Sizemore is kind of a grey area... he had two crucial years in the minors in Cleveland (didn't play above A ball with Montreal), so that's largely a matter of interpretation too. I'm surprised looking at that list that Frasor doesn't account for  more of the Jays' value.
Leigh - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 07:09 PM EDT (#170214) #
Warren, the breakdown was Hill 4, Janssen 4, Marcum 2, Thigpen 1, Frasor 1, Vermilyea 1.  Not an exact science, I know, but WSAB is a decent backward-looking gauge of on-field contribution.
Leigh - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 07:11 PM EDT (#170215) #
And now that I look back at my notes, Warren, the Tigers would still lead the Jays even without Bonderman.
Jim - Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:13 PM EDT (#170216) #
Janssen 4, Marcum 2, Frasor 1, Vermilyea 1

I know that these numbers show that JP gets some credit for the system.  My only problem with giving him credit is that he had no intention of using some of these players as much as he had.  Marcum wasn't supposed to be in the rotation, Vermilyea wasn't supposed to be up.  The only reason that they have gotten a chance is because the players Riccardi spent money on bombed out.  So, sure they have some Win Shares Above Bench, but it's not like JP didn't waste plenty of money and opporunity on players who were worse before he finally had no choice but to use them. 

If he saved the money he wasted on Ohka and Zambrano and Thompson and instead used Marcum from day 1 of the season then to me that would be much more impressive.




Leigh - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 08:15 AM EDT (#170223) #
I agree Jim.  There really is very little connection between the little quick and dirty study that I did and JP's track record at prospecting and prospect development.  I was just using Sheehan's criteria.
John Northey - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 11:22 AM EDT (#170240) #
Intention vs non-intention of use is a very hard thing to measure. In '84 the Jays kept playing Griffen (OPS+ of 48 which was in line with past seasons) over Fernandez (84 which was lower than he'd be later, amazing defense), does that make Bobby Cox a bad manager to not see how silly a move that was, or Pat Gillick a bad GM?

Injuries and the like are always there as are moved like signing Zambrano, Ohka, and Thomson. The key to success is to know when to cut your losses and move on. JP has been fairly good at that - see Alex Gonzalez, Mondesi, Phelps, Aquilino Lopez (looked great for a year, sucked early on and was down and let go), Hillenbrand, and Hinske (now at 188/293/375 - still want him back?). All those guys would've been easy to keep in the lineup, in Toronto. All were dumped or sent down. In the Ash era we'd probably have seen them here until they were so bad he couldn't get rid of them and even then he would hesitate to release them.

Now, as to the way it was handled this year, Zambrano should've started in AAA, Ohka was dealt with about right given he was very mediocre game in, game out and there were issues elsewhere (the total lack of confidence in Towers for example). But I give JP marks for not doing the easy thing and putting Thomson in the rotation or keeping Ohka there rather than giving Marcum & McGowan the shot. Heck, putting Towers back in rather than Ohka and Thomson and Zambrano is a good thing imo too as was given Litsch a shot. Shifting Frasor from setup to closer to 5th man in the pen also shows a willingness to change which is vital.

I'd bet strongly that if we still had the Ash/Fregosi show here we'd be seeing Frasor as closer, Zambrano/Ohka/Thomson in the rotation, and a batch of 'proven vets' playing over guys like Hill/Lind/Rios.
Ryan Day - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 11:44 AM EDT (#170246) #

Ricciardi has an interesting split personality when it comes to making decisions. Most of the time, he's willing to cut bait when a player isn't working out, and he won't stick with a guy just because he had a good season last year, or is making more than a million bucks. Sometimes he does it prematurely - Chad Gaudin, for example - but he'll usually admit when a player isn't working out.

Of course, sometimes he seems to stick his fingers in his ears and pretend he can't see anything wrong - Royce Clayton, the lack of a real fourth outfielder, a bullpen with one or two guys who pitch once a month...  (Speaking of which: Why on earth did Gibbons feel the need to use Casey Janssen with an 11-run lead last night? That's what the Wolfe's and De Jong's of the world are for.)

Anyway, there's making a mistake, and then refusing to admit you made a mistake, or at least that things aren't going as planned. I'm not convinced signing guys like Ohka, Thomson, and Zambrano was a black-and-white mistake -they were all cheap, all had some up-side, and it wasn't clear that Marcum and Janssen would be significant upgrades prior to spring training. But Ricciardi adapted to the way things unfolded, which isn't something all GMs would do.

Magpie - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 11:55 AM EDT (#170251) #
I can't criticize the Ohka-Thomson-Zambrano signings. It's not like he wasted a lot of money - Thomson and Zambrano were signed to just over the major league minimum, and Ohka's deal was for $1.5 million. Not going to break the bank or nothing. And the strategy of throwing a few cheap veterans at the wall and seeing if one of them sticks has been known to succeed, big-time (ladies and gentlemen, the 1987 Montreal Expos!).
Mike Green - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:00 PM EDT (#170252) #
Oh yes, Magpie.  I remember.  Of course, the Expos used the Thomson method (triple A work first) rather than the Zambrano/Ohka (throw 'em right in there) method for evaluation after the signing.  As in a marriage or a business contract, it's not only the signing on the dotted line that is important, but what you do afterward.
Magpie - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:06 PM EDT (#170256) #
Chad Gaudin, for example

Ricciardi was very hard on himself on the radio last night for letting Gaudin get away - he said "I blew it" repeatedly, and that he should have remembered why he traded for him in the first place. He gets more slack from me on that one - Gaudin was already out of options heading into 2006 (because Tampa rushed him to the majors), and as Ricciardi noted, LH batters were eating him for dinner in AAA, never mind the majors.

The other item of note from last night is that Burnett could start on Saturday, that he wanted to start on Saturday, and that if it was late September and a close pennant race, he probably would.
ayjackson - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:09 PM EDT (#170259) #

While it may look like the signing of Thomson, Ohka and Zambrano didn't work, in a larger context it did.

Going into the season, we looked to have an above average number 1 and 2 starter and a below average number 3.  The plan seemed to be to have a number of starters that statistically project to an average number 5 starter and hope that one of them exceeds expectations and settles nicely into the number 4 role.  Ohka, Thomson, Zambrano joined Janssen, Marcum, McGowan and Taubenheim to battle for those two spots.  The plan worked as three of those seven exceeded projections (at least up until the last start of Dustin's).  It just so-happened that the three FAs didn't meet their statistical projections for the year and the prospects did.

At least, that's one way of looking at it.

Magpie - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#170260) #
What I don't remember about the 1987 Expos are the guys they signed to minor league deals that year who didn't stick. They caught some lightning in a bottle with Pascual Perez and were incredibly fortunate with Dennis Martinez (both picked up off the scrap heap and signed to minor league deals) - but there were several other starters in camp that spring who didn't make the cut. Damned if I can remember who they were now...
ayjackson - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:13 PM EDT (#170262) #

The other item of note from last night is that Burnett could start on Saturday, that he wanted to start on Saturday, and that if it was late September and a close pennant race, he probably would.

That's good news - Gibby should be able to march the well-rested Burnett out for a 130-pitch outing on the 29th then.

Thomas - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:14 PM EDT (#170263) #

Ricciardi was very hard on himself on the radio last night for letting Gaudin get away - he said "I blew it" repeatedly, and that he should have remembered why he traded for him in the first place.

Did he say anything else of note last night?

Ryan Day - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:16 PM EDT (#170264) #
I don't think letting Gaudin go was a huge, unforgiveable mistake - like you say, there were plenty of downsides. But at the same time, this was a young guy with great minor-league numbers who'd already had success in the majors, and it's not like the Jays were overwhelmed with all-star starters and relievers last year. Ricciardi took perhaps too much of a short-term view of the situation.
Mike Green - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#170265) #
The Expos called up Dennis Martinez in June of 1987 and Perez  in August.  As Mark Knopfler put it, that's the way you do it, although Money for Nothing might not be the best entrance music for a pitcher. Not that the Walk of Life would be any good either.
Ryan Day - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:23 PM EDT (#170266) #

Just a sort of echo of the Gaudin situation: Look at how Ricciardi handled Francisco Rosario this year. Rosario was out of options, so had to be on the major league roster; Ricciardi decided, for good or ill, that he wasn't good enough to make the team, and he wanted the best pitchers on the roster. Which is fine in principle, but then you consider that Victor Zambrano sat in the bullpen gathering dust for a month when he could have been in Syracuse working as a starter; that's a month the Jays could have given to Rosario.

(And as it happens, Rosario's been getting smacked around in Philadelphia, so by the end of the year no one might care. But the Zambrano Experiment had repercussions beyond simply allowing Zambrano to pitch in real games.)

Magpie - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 12:43 PM EDT (#170270) #
Did he say anything else of note last night?

He was asked, as you might expect, about Burnett's pitch counts. Naturally, he stuck up for the manager. One specific thing he said was that the team needed Burnett to give them some innings because the bullpen had been used heavily. Let's check that out.

Burnett worked 7 IP against Tampa Bay on June 7 - that's not unreasonable, although he needed a whopping 131 pitches to do so. The day before, Ohka went just 3.1 and Tallet, Downs, Janssen and DeJong were all required in relief. The day before that, Halladay went just 3.1 - Wolfe, Frasor, and Towers all pitched multiple innings in relief.

Burnett worked 7.1 IP against the White Sox on June 1, throwing 118 pitches.  I don't think that's unreasonable. This time, the bullpen was rested - Janssen and Accardo had each worked 1 IP the night before.

And Burnett worked 8 IP against the Twins on May 27, throwing 127 pitches. Ohka had given them 7 good innings the ady before, but the game went on and on and five relievers pitched 6 innings between them (Janssen, Accardo, Downs, Frasor, Tallet.)

I don't think any of the individual decisions to let Burnett pitch into the seventh or eighth are that bad, but the fact that he's not exactly the most efficient guy out there and he does have a history makes one cast about for alternative strategies.

The thing about Burnett is this: the closer you get, the easier he makes it look. I'd seen him plenty of times on TV, but  the first time I saw him in person, I was simply amazed. It just looks so effortless for him - he doesn't look like he's straining himself, or even throwing all that hard - he looks like he's playing catch.  And the seats in the dugout are even closer...
Chuck - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 01:01 PM EDT (#170273) #

Chad Gaudin, for example

Gaudin is very young and may well have a big future, but there's been a good amount of mirror use the past two seasons.

His success, both last year and this (ERA's of 3.09 and 3.05) has been largely due to his ability to keep the ball in the yard (one homerun per 22 innings). And while his K/BB ratio of 1.5 is unspectacular, it is an improvement over last year's disastrous 0.9. So he is improving. Still, if his homerun rate regresses to something more normal, those peripherals will have him looking a lot like Zito (except to his bank manager).

Mike Green - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#170275) #
The bullpen wasn't in that bad shape for the June 7 appearance.  June 4 was a day off.  Frasor had thrown 2 innings on June 5, but that was the extent of it between June 2-6.  He surely could have given you an inning on June 7. Downs was good for a batter if required, as were several of the other relievers.

The score was 3-3 after 6, and it seemed pretty clear to me that the reason for the decision was a belief that having Burnett throw another inning (with the entailed risk) gave the club a better chance to win the game.  What was especially peculiar about that was that Ohka had been inserted into the rotation with the express idea of giving Burnett an extra day.

Magpie - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 01:53 PM EDT (#170277) #
The score was 3-3 after 6

The obvious time to pull him might have been an inning earlier. Norton had just doubled to score Crawford. Tampa was up 3-1 in the fifth, no one out, runner on second. And Burnett already at 86 pitches.

He stayed in the game, of course. Here's what happened:

Pena struck out swinging
Wigginton struck out swinging
Young struck out swinging

Navarro struck out swinging
Harris grounded out to short
Upton reached on an error
Dukes struck out swinging

Crawford struck out swinging
Norton struck out looking
Pena struck out swinging

You know, there are lots and lots of managers who would have sent him back out for the eighth inning, rather than sending him to the showers at that point. Burnett can make pitching look awfully easy sometimes.
Chuck - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 02:06 PM EDT (#170278) #

One specific thing he said was that the team needed Burnett to give them some innings because the bullpen had been used heavily.

In a day and age where teams carry seven relievers, can such a statement be made with a straight face?

Mike Green - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 02:11 PM EDT (#170279) #
The balancing of in-game strategic decisions vs. the longer term best interests of the club is a funny thing.  Many managers, Gibbons included, like to give their bench players back-to-back starts early in the season just to get their feet wet, even though it actually hurts the club's chances of winning the particular games. The difference between Gregg Zaun and Jason Phillips, say, over a game is much, much larger than the difference between Burnett and Frasor for an inning with Burnett having already thrown 118 pitches.  Everyone knows that Zaun will break down if he is overused, but it seems harder for the message to be received in the case of Burnett.





MatO - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 02:18 PM EDT (#170282) #
Aren't we assuming that there is cause and effect here.  Just because we think there is a correlation between the number of pitches Burnett threw and his injury doesn't mean it's true.  It may have been just a coincidence.  The problem is that can never really know without repeating this scenario a number of times.
Magpie - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 02:28 PM EDT (#170284) #
It may have been just a coincidence.

You're absolutely right. Although it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck - it really could be just a guy in a duck suit.

We'll never, never know. If Burnett had thrown 88, 102, and 96 pitches in the three starts prior  - his shoulder still might have started hurting after three innings the next time out.
Ryan Day - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 02:30 PM EDT (#170285) #
He probably meant to say "the bullpen pitchers we actually use" are overworked, as opposed to the bullpen pitchers who are kept around in case a game goes to the 20th inning or the starter gives up 15 runs in the first inning.
Matthew E - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 02:56 PM EDT (#170289) #
What I don't remember about the 1987 Expos are the guys they signed to minor league deals that year who didn't stick. They caught some lightning in a bottle with Pascual Perez and were incredibly fortunate with Dennis Martinez (both picked up off the scrap heap and signed to minor league deals) - but there were several other starters in camp that spring who didn't make the cut. Damned if I can remember who they were now...

I think Lary Sorensen was one of them, although he may have actually made the team for a short time.
Ron - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 02:57 PM EDT (#170290) #
I didn't mind the Jays signing the holy trinity of scrap heap starting pitchers although it looks look a complete bust right now. The problem I have is why in the world did they have Zambrano basically rehabbing in the majors? Is their a good reason to try to stretch Zambrano out in the Majors instead of AAA? To make matters worse the Jays made Zambrano start against the Indians. A start in which they hoped he might be able to throw 50-60 pitches (basically 3 innings). And then his next start was against another walk machine team in the Red Sox.

It's June 21st and I'm still trying to figure out the Jays logic. I'm stumped.

Mike Green - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:03 PM EDT (#170291) #
MatO, we're not talking about cause and effect, but increased risk.  There are people who think that you can send out a pitcher who has had Tommy John surgery, and has missed 2 months subsequent to the surgery due to recurrent elbow problems, and have them throw 120-130 pitches without increased risk, but I imagine that they are in a distinct minority. 
There is a spectrum of opinion on pitch counts generally, but even those who feel pitch counts are overrated mostly make an exception for very young pitchers and those with an injury history like Burnett's. 


Magpie - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:06 PM EDT (#170293) #
even those who feel pitch counts are overrated mostly make an exception for very young pitchers and those with an injury history like Burnett's.

That would be me. And yeah, I don't think even I would have sent him out to work the 7th after 115 pitches.
MatO - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:25 PM EDT (#170303) #
I wouldn't have sent him out to pitch either but my problem is only with everyone simply assuming an if A then it must be B scenario without any hint of doubt.  Interestingly, he hurt his shoulder when you'd think his elbow was more vulnerable.
ayjackson - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:29 PM EDT (#170304) #

Interestingly, he hurt his shoulder when you'd think his elbow was more vulnerable.

I commented on this at the time.  Tired muscles puts extra strain on the joints.  I think it is could be a good sign that the elbow is stronger than ever.

Ryan Day - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:36 PM EDT (#170307) #

No one really knows a lot about how pitchers get hurt other than "throwing a lot of pitches often is probably bad." Of course, some pitchers get hurt in limited action, and others can pitch forever and not get hurt.

Burnett's injury isn't really what I'd think of from an overworked, injured pitcher. Normally you'd expect maybe a loss of velocity, less control, reduced effectiveness. Not a sudden "Ow, my shoulder hurts" in the middle of a game. (That's the sort of reaction I might expect from a guy who just blew his elbow out) Maybe the injury was coming regardless of how many pitches he threw - last year he went down in spring training, and he wasn't overworked then.

Still, I think "throwing a lot of pitches often is probably bad" is a good mantra to stick with. And Burnett's case is odd, because the Jays generally have been pretty sensible with starters - the temptation to ride Halladay hard must be very strong, but he's only topped 110 pitches once.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:52 PM EDT (#170312) #

Of course, some pitchers get hurt in limited action, and others can pitch forever and not get hurt.

B.J. Ryan, this is Nolan Ryan. Nolan, this is B.J. -- that last sentence was about you two!

ayjackson - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:53 PM EDT (#170313) #

Burnett's injury isn't really what I'd think of from an overworked, injured pitcher. Normally you'd expect maybe a loss of velocity, less control, reduced effectiveness. Not a sudden "Ow, my shoulder hurts" in the middle of a game.

Burnett's fastball was sitting at 93-94mph during that game and had me very concerned.  However, after last night's game, I'm thinking it may have been the Sportsnet gun.  Last night Doc sat at 88-91, Janssen's 4-seamer was 90, and Kuo couldn't get one above 90 either....I don't remember seeing any of Broxton's speeds, but I'm sure that gun was aimed wrong and taking 3-4 mph off the fastballs.

ayjackson - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#170314) #
The other thing about Burnett's injury that I noted at the time is that it only caused him visible discomfort on the two curve balls he threw.  I don't remember how many pitches were in between, but I think there were two changeups (maybe a fastball as well) between them that didn't seem to hurt him.
Hold on a Second, Joe | 89 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.