Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
It's no secret that Aaron Hill has been awful this year. However, there's been very little hand-wringing 'round these parts (or anywhere, really) about his struggles. Perhaps it's the homers (he hit #23 in Monday's game), or the excellent defense (though this is a suspect claim according to the numbers). More likely, I think we've all just been assuming he'd come out of the slump at any minute. More than five months later, he hasn't. Why not?

Sometimes, when I dig through stats to find out what's going on with a player or a team or what-have-you, the stats seem to align themselves in layers, and as I delve progressively deeper, each new layer adds new information, usually changing my perception slightly, but sometimes dramatically upsetting what I had previously come to believe. This has never been more apparent than in my examination of Aaron Hill's 2010 season, when the next layer of stats fundamentally changed my opinion on Hill's season no less than three times. Before I take you on this wonderful voyage, though, a little background.

Hill had a great season in 2009. He hit 36 home runs, drove in 108 teammates (some several times!), won a Silver Slugger, and was, along with Adam Lind, one of the offensive leaders of the team - a rare title for a second baseman. He accomplished all this through a combination of improvement in his batted ball profile - his infield fly % dropped about 7% from the previous year - and a dramatic swing in his HR/FB rate. In 2008, an absurdly low 2.4% of Hill's fly balls left the yard - well below the standard 11% for an average hitter. Power hitters, of course, are often able to sustain a higher HR/FB rate, and if Hill really has become that type of hitter, perhaps his 2009 figure of 14.9% is a reasonable expectation. Let's be conservative and say it was a little high, but not by much.

Aaron's BABIP actually hit a career low in 2009 (.288), so I think it's fair to say 2009 looked like a breakout season, and his offensive prowess could be expected to continue, if with a slightly lower home run total.

1. Triple Slash Stats

This is always the first class of stats I look at when assessing a player's season. It gives a quick and dirty view of how often a player gets a hit, how often he walks, and how much muscle he flexes.

There's not much to say here; by these stats, Hill has had a terrible year at the plate, and his line currently sits at .215/.284/.410, even with a recent hot streak.

2. Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP)

But wait a second! Upon digging further, it becomes apparent that Aaron has run into some bad luck this year. BABIP is a stat that fluctuates from year to year on a somewhat random basis; once a player establishes a norm (Hill's career BABIP was around .300 coming into this year), their season BABIP tends to fluctuate up to 30 points or so in either direction. There are always some players who see much larger variations, and these are often the players we expect to crash and burn or come back in a huge way, as the case may be.

Aaron Hill is one of those players for 2010. Oh, and that's quite an understatement. Hill has the lowest BABIP in the major leagues. By twenty-three points.

Yeah. Hill's BABIP is an atrocious .204. Carlos Pena is second worst at .227, third is Carlos Quentin at .239. By BABIP, Hill has been by far the unluckiest player in the majors. It's hard to tell exactly what his triple slash stats would look like given an 80 point swing back to his 2009 BABIP (.288), but given the fact that his isolated slugging is almost as good as last year (.195 to .213) and his K/BB ratio is actually better (1.69 to 2.33), it's probably fair to say his season would look something like last year's, when he won the Silver Slugger.

3. Batted Ball Profile

...until you look at the third layer of stats. This is where things get really weird. Check out this (anti) leaderboard, courtesy of Fangraphs, sorted by line drive %:

Name Team BABIP GB/FB LD% GB% FB% IFFB% HR/FB IFH IFH% BUH BUH%
Aaron Hill Blue Jays .204 0.65 10.3 % 35.4 % 54.4 % 12.3 % 10.4 % 10 7.2 % 0 0.0 %
Jeff Francoeur - - - .259 0.90 13.4 % 40.9 % 45.7 % 13.0 % 7.1 % 12 8.7 % 1 50.0 %
Mark Reynolds Diamondbacks .265 0.54 13.7 % 30.4 % 55.9 % 14.6 % 21.2 % 7 8.5 % 0 0.0 %
Rajai Davis Athletics .307 1.40 14.5 % 49.9 % 35.7 % 13.3 % 3.9 % 21 11.7 % 2 40.0 %
Drew Stubbs Reds .313 1.15 14.5 % 45.7 % 39.8 % 9.6 % 13.0 % 17 12.9 % 3 30.0 %
Carlos Quentin White Sox .239 0.76 14.7 % 36.8 % 48.5 % 13.6 % 14.8 % 8 6.5 % 0 0.0 %
Alex Rodriguez Yankees .276 1.15 14.7 % 45.7 % 39.6 % 9.8 % 14.7 % 12 7.3 % 0 0.0 %
Jose Bautista Blue Jays .249 0.59 14.9 % 31.6 % 53.5 % 14.4 % 21.4 % 11 9.2 % 0 0.0 %
Carlos Pena Rays .227 1.15 14.9 % 45.6 % 39.5 % 10.8 % 23.4 % 10 7.8 % 4 80.0 %
Troy Glaus Braves .276 0.91 15.2 % 40.5 % 44.3 % 5.1 % 11.7 % 4 3.2 % 0 0.0 %
Brennan Boesch Tigers .307 1.10 15.3 % 44.4 % 40.3 % 17.1 % 10.9 % 9 6.3 % 0 0.0 %

Yes, you read that right. This is the second important stat in which Hill is an extreme outlier. He has the lowest line drive % in baseball. By over three percent. Line drives are the best kind of batted ball since they fall for hits much more often than ground balls, fly balls, or anything else. Over his career, Hill has generally hit line drives around 20% of the time; this year, he's down to 10%. That's a huge change.

Of course, those balls have to go somewhere, and in this case Hill's fly ball percentage has increased by a whopping 13.4% (he shaved a few points off his ground ball % from 2009 as well). It's as if he consciously changed his swing based on all those home runs he was hitting. If he could hit 36 as a line drive hitter, imagine how many he'd smack with an uppercut?

So now we've swung back to the perception that Hill is indeed having a very bad year, as indicated by the number of line drives he hasn't been hitting. This seems to be a reasonable explanation for his bizarrely low BABIP.

4. xBABIP

Now the good news. I just found this handy little xBABIP Calculator at the Hardball Times, which attempts to predict a player's BABIP based on their batted ball profile. Turns out that based on his LD%, GB%, etc., Hill's BABIP should have been around .285, or just about the same as last year.

Okay, now that's a head-scratcher. His line drive % cut itself in half, and we can expect his batted balls to turn into hits at the same rate? The answer is that, according to this tool, Hill under-performed his BABIP last year as well, by about 25 points. Now that's an interesting result in itself; Hill was great last year. He hit 36 home runs! And he was unlucky?!

But actually, this result, the 2010 result I mean, doesn't seem too outlandish when one examines the above table. All those guys have low line drive rates (though not as low as Hill, admittedly) and their BABIPs seem to center around .270 or .280.

-----

So another layer of stats has once again turned the analysis on its head and we're back to the "Hill is fine" conclusion. At least that's what the numbers say - I still find it hard to resolve a 10% line drive rate with an above-average hitter. It seems that Hill is able to turn this trick on the strength of his above average power (.200 ISO) and strong plate discipline (his strikeout rate, never very high to begin with, has actually gone slightly down in the last two years as he's added power).

Regardless, I hope to see him go back to 2009 form. Hill always seemed like a good line drive hitter; I'd rather he hit 20 homers a year with a high batting average and lots of doubles. Somehow that just seems safer. I don't know. But anyway, the lesson for today is, even if he stays the same hitter he's been in 2010, he should still be a productive hitter.

Now, defense is another issue. Despite his sterling reputation, UZR says Hill has only had one great season defensively (2006), and otherwise he's been about average. Some have mentioned a future move to third base, and Hill has even commented that he'd be open to such a move. At this point though, nobody's knocking the door down at either position, so I say you keep him in the middle infield. Perhaps when Hechavarria is ready one of him or Escobar moves to second and Hill shifts to third. But that's a post for next year (or sooner, hopefully!).
The Bizarre Season of Aaron Hill | 83 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Dave Till - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 08:05 AM EDT (#222030) #
I seem to recall reading that, this spring, Aaron Hill made a conscious effort to try to improve his plate discipline. My theory is that this destroyed his timing.

It shows up in the stats: before the break, Hill's averages (BA, OBP, SLG) were .189/.272/.359, and he was drawing a walk every ten at-bats. Since the All-Star break, he's drawn only 9 walks in 174 at-bats, but his numbers are .264/.309/.511. That's not far off from his 2009 numbers, which were .286/.330/.499 (and, in fact, his slugging percentage is now higher than it was last year). When you consider that his BABIP is low this year, and that he started 2009 with a torrid hot streak and then settled down, I'd hypothesize that Hill is pretty much back to being the player he was.

The moral of this story: hitting is difficult. Especially, pitch recognition - the ability to instantly recognize that a 95 mph fastball or an 85 mph slider is going to end up out of the strike zone - is even more difficult. Hill was clearly born to be a high-power, low-OBP type of hitter.

As for whether to move him from second - it will depend on how quickly Hechevarria develops, and on whether either Hechevarria or Escobar is willing to move to second base. (Some players would see that as a demotion.) Moving Hill to third would mean that the Jays would miss Overbay less: Encarnacion's greatest weakness at third is a somewhat random throwing arm. Having Hill at third would enable the Jays to be comfortable with a first baseman who isn't expert at scooping up bad throws to first.

AWeb - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 08:30 AM EDT (#222031) #
Hill's defense isn't lacking, but keep in mind that the stat is comparing Hill to an average fielder. Being essentially an average fielder at a major league position like 2B means you are very good defensively. Few teams are punting on defense at 2B, and aside from SS, CF and C, it's the next most likely spot to be manned by a defensive specialist, and often a former SS. So in some sense, it's possible for Hill to be very good and still average at the same time. I don't think Hill is especially great, but is certainly not at teh stage where he needs to be moved to an easier position.

The offense however - Hill hasn't seemed to be a victim of bad luck, which I think his LD% bears out. Unlike, say, Snider, who to my eye has been hitting a lot of liners at people, Hill has been hitting homers (which can lower the BABIP by not being doubles) and not much else. I think this strange offensive player may be one we have to get used to. If he was striking out more, I'd compare him to Dave Kingman...
Magpie - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 08:53 AM EDT (#222032) #
Good work. Now tell us what's going on with Adam Lind...
Dave Till - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 10:39 AM EDT (#222036) #
So in some sense, it's possible for Hill to be very good and still average at the same time.

I think that you are absolutely right. I also believe that this is why it's hard for a team to move from 85 wins to 95. It's hard enough to find an average 2B - many teams don't have anybody as good as Hill. It's harder still to find somebody who is both an above-average hitter and an above-average defensive second baseman. One of the reasons that the 1992 and 1993 Jays did so well was because they had Roberto Alomar, who was both, as their second baseman.
cascando - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 11:41 AM EDT (#222039) #

From my uneducated perspective, it seems that Hill has spent the year trying to yank everything into the LF seats.  Pitchers have adjusted by keeping the ball away and that has resulted in a lot of lazy fly balls and pop ups off the end of the bat.  If Hill can start taking those pitches the other way for base hits (and perhaps he has made this adjustment) then his LD% would probably climb considerably.

 

Chuck - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 12:52 PM EDT (#222040) #

From my uneducated perspective, it seems that Hill has spent the year trying to yank everything into the LF seats. 

Your observations are consistent with a study that I read, but can't now find, which reported (and quantified) that Hill absolutely murdered pitches on the inner half of the plate in 2009, to the degree that a change in pitching strategy would be inevitable.

Of interest are Hill's L/R OPS splits:
2009: 897/806 (11 HR in 171 AB vs LHP)
2010: 466/770 (2 HR in 99 AB vs LHP)

Lefties have seemingly adjusted to Hill. Hill has seemingly not made counter-adjustments.

 

joeblow - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 01:03 PM EDT (#222041) #
There was a graphic on one of the weekend games which show how rarely Hill went opposite field. The defense are totally pulled to the left which turns many of his line drives into outs.
TamRa - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#222046) #
Hill has ben almost the equivilant of last year since the start of July (53 games, basically 1/3 of a season) - and Lind has been pretty good (though not back to 2009 levels) in that span.

it speaks to the horrendous depth of the first half collapse (and this is true of Overbay's first six weeks as well) that the current line looks so very bad.
 
On the flip side, Vernon Wells was a monster through late June and then turned back into a pumpkin for 50 games though he seems to be recovering some in the past week.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 02:24 PM EDT (#222048) #
FYI, per the ----- on your chart, Jeff Francoeur is a Texas Ranger.
Ducey - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 02:34 PM EDT (#222049) #

It seems to me the hitting coach has some responsibility here.  Obviously the Jays have put an emphasis on hitting homers.  I am not sure how this is done.  Maybe it is as simple as swinging harder and trying to pull.  MacDonald mentioned last week that he had never been taught to hit for power before so it apparently involves some change in approach.

This has worked for Bautista and even MacDonald but it doesn't seem to have worked for Hill or Lind.  Given those stats vs lefties posted above, he is going to need to go the other way occassionally.

John Northey - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 02:38 PM EDT (#222051) #
Checking by month you can see for slash stats - avg/obp/slg OPS+

Hill...
April: 162/311/297 67
May: 184/273/395 81
June: 198/264/347 66
July: 250/292/393 86
August: 248/287/515 117
September: 333/381/778 211 (just 21 PA)

Outside of Aug/Sept it has been ugly. April & June the worst but May/July weren't nice either (May/July = Hill 2008).

Lind...
April: 286/359/484 128
May: 174/220/312 44
June: 156/216/233 23
July: 275/327/505 124
August: 278/320/536 133
September: 200/200/250 24 (20 PA)

Lind had 2 super-ugly months - I mean as bad or worse than John McDonald at his worst (41 is as bad as McDonald's had over a full season).

A 120+ OPS+ out of a DH is acceptable. Not great, but OK. An OPS+ in the 80's is endurable for a 2B, but if the 110+ level he's been at since August started sticks then Hill is well worth his contract.
Dave Rutt - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 04:27 PM EDT (#222055) #
Thanks Mick - I copied the chart directly from Fangraphs, and I'm pretty sure the --- refers to Francoeur's multi-teamness.
Mylegacy - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 05:51 PM EDT (#222060) #
Escobar - this is the guy we need to sprinkle with home run dust. Yunel is a very powerfully built guy who still hits like a 20 year old slap and run SS prospect (with an occasional show of what might be). IF - this guy does not add power - and fast - I see Hech passing him very soon. IF - he does add the power - well - won't that be a pretty picture.

Still playing - IF: if Lind, Hill, Snider, JPA and Wells all join Bautista at 30+ homers - 2011 could be sweet, very sweet.
Mike Green - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 09:48 PM EDT (#222065) #
The exact quality of Hill's defence is a matter of some debate.  The UZR vs. Dewan/Total Zone numbers are quite different, with UZR showing him as a below average defender every year since 2007 while Dewan/TZ sees him as a good to great defender.  I'd personally lean to him slowly deteriorating from a very good to a merely good defender.  If that's right, he's a fine player even if he hits .240.  If you take the Dewan/TZ view, he's been a 5+ WAR player in his best years and can be expected to return to being a 3.5 WAR player.  These guys help you win even in the AL East. 



smcs - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 10:09 PM EDT (#222067) #
Adam Lind...oh boy.  Of course, as I am writing this, Lind hits his 20th HR to straightaway center off of Windows, off of a lefty, natch.

Compared to last year, he is striking out more and walking less.  His K% has gone from 18.7% to 25.3% and his BB% has gone from 8.9% down to 6.5%.

He's swinging at a lot of pitches out of the zone (34.9%), while making contact on 66.1% of those out of zone pitches.  That would be a career high and a career low.  Throw in that 56% of all pitches thrown to him are out of the zone (career high again), that means that he is turning 6.5% of his pitches from balls into strikes by swinging and missing at pitches out of the zone.  In general, he is just not making as much contact.  And when he is, he has a .270 BABIP, down from .323 last year.

He is hitting decently off of righties, but just terribly off of lefties.  Take a guess at how bad he is hitting off of lefties.  It's worse than that.  His OPS+ this year against lefties has been (-8).  I can't emphasize how terrible he has been.  Go to his splits page and look for yourself.  I might be biased because literally as I was looking at this for the first time, with my mouth agape at how bad his stats were, he took a fastball above the belt from lefty specialist Darren Oliver off of Windows.

What do I think?  He has taken Gaston's philosophy to heart and is trying to swing as hard as he can at each pitch.  His home runs have been coming off the bat faster than last year and at a lower angle of elevation. 

To sum up, he has been swinging at more pitches, while seeing more pitches out of the zone.  When he is swinging, he is making less contact at pitches both in and out of the zone.  He has gone from being able to hit fastballs and  sliders to being unable to hit fastballs and sliders, but they haven't been thrown any more or any less often at him, just less often in the zone.

Other than the lefties thing, nothing jumps out at me as being absolutely and ridiculously out of place.  This is two-sided -- nothing jumps out as something that will regress towards the mean next year (aka improve), and nothing jumps out as something that will not regress towards the mean next year (aka continue to get worse).  This season has been very similar to his '07 season, which was followed by a good 2008 and a very good 2009.  There is hope because, as John Northey pointed out above, he was much better in July and August than in May and June.
brent - Tuesday, September 07 2010 @ 10:34 PM EDT (#222068) #
I hope today's 10,500 people will be the last low point in attendance this year.
jmoney - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 12:27 AM EDT (#222072) #
Hey 10.5K attendance was probably more then the audience watching on SPORTSNET 1 Baby!
Moe - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 03:15 AM EDT (#222075) #
I hope today's 10,500 people will be the last low point in attendance this year.

I'm sure we'll see 4 digits against the Mariners: mid-week against a last place club. Bad news in late September.
scottt - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 07:09 AM EDT (#222077) #
Most of what I had to say as already been posted, so I'll just comment on Wells. After sucking hard 2 years ago, and hitting well on the road but struggling at home last year, Wells has been great at home and has struggled mightily in most other ballparks. There's no logic to it, he's just completely random and unpredictable. Perfect fit for the cleanup spot?

Also, it's not just Lind, most Jays have had trouble with lefties this year, including the right handers.

Magpie - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 10:19 AM EDT (#222081) #
After sucking hard 2 years ago

In 2008? You sure?
Kasi - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#222085) #
The Jays have been a consistent winning team. What they have not been is a playoff team. Shame that Toronto fans can't be excited by an 81-88 game winner, but I can understand their frustration. It's not like it is going to get any easier soon. Toronto as the AL East stands has a very hard road to get into the playoffs, and I don't like their chances of it against the Yankees and Sox given their superior resources. Tampa is still going to be good for several years coming, and as we're seeing now, Showalter knows what he is doing and Baltimore is playing very well. It's possible next year Toronto could finish with 81 wins but be last in the division.
92-93 - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 12:43 PM EDT (#222090) #
The Blue Jays have around a 60m on-field payroll. When they decide to get serious and start spending $ on par with other similar markets, then people can fret about the attendance. Until then Rogers is getting what they deserve. Stop telling us the money is there to spend and start actually showing us it exists.
TamRa - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 02:52 PM EDT (#222105) #
Eh.

spending it wisely is not always spending it on the major league field.

After all, if spending big money on the major league roster was good for attendence, you'd have to demostrate that by the attendence spike that accompanied the signings of Ryan and Burnett and Thomas among others - it's not there.

I much prefer the way they are spending it now.

I've got a perhaps irrational fetish for winning - eventually winnig big - with players that are home grown. Not to disrespect guys i loved in the 90's like Molitor and Alomar - but nothing would make me more proud than that every important player on our next championship teams was developed from our own system.


92-93 - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 04:46 PM EDT (#222117) #
My fetish is for winning and I don't care who the players on the field are or where they came from.

Winning brings attendance and it rose 15% from 2005 to 2006 and by the end of Burnett's contract it had gone up 20%. The attendance spike was most definitely there.

Spending money on the major league product shouldn't prevent the team from drafting well and targeting players like Hechevarria and Chapman. Nobody is advocating throwing 150m each at Crawford and Lee, but if there are reasonable values on the FA market the Jays have no excuse to not pursue them unless they are actively blocking a top prospect who could produce the same for less.
Mike Green - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 05:06 PM EDT (#222118) #
I was curious about how Jay attendance fared relative to the rest of the league during the 83-87 period.  The answer: 7th (of 14 teams), 4th, 2nd, 2nd and 1st.  However, the figures were in the 2.5 million zone.  The Yankees and Red Sox were competitive during those years.  All of which is to say that Toronto fans will support a competitive club of mostly homegrown talent, new stadium or no. 

At this point, the club has $43 million in salary accounted for in 2011.  Bautista is in his final year of arb. and is obviously in line for a large increase.  Marcum is in his 2nd year, and Escobar and Morrow are in their first.  The club spent $78 million in 2010 (down from previous years), including $16 million for BJ Ryan and Roy Halladay.  There should be some money around.  The first thing they have to figure out is what they are doing with Bautista.


JohnL - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 05:28 PM EDT (#222121) #

Regarding the attendance issue (I saw the Globe made it part of the game headline), looks like post-Labour Day/back to school is a dead time.

Last year, the two lowest attendances of the year were the Wed & Thursday after Labour Day (vs Minn) - just over 11,000. The Tuesday night was almost 13,500, but for some reason, I vaguely think there was some promo on that night. (When I first typed that, I accidentally typed "pormo". Maybe they had porno on the Jumbotron, and that brought in the extra couple of thousand)

 

 

Kasi - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 06:56 PM EDT (#222123) #
Speaking of bizarre, wow look at the lineup from tonight. Just horrible. Oh well, only 4 more weeks!
jmoney - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 08:50 PM EDT (#222126) #
Speaking of today's game. Why does Tallet need to pitch at all? We already know he's terrible and not like to change.
Kasi - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 09:14 PM EDT (#222127) #
I think Cito tends to put out the "I give up" lineup when the fifth guy is going. Good time to get the regular's their days off and such. But it leads to some really wonky looking lineups, and I doubt it makes the 5th starters very happy. It just is very jarring how bad our lineup looks when we have this many regulars out.

TamRa - Wednesday, September 08 2010 @ 09:28 PM EDT (#222128) #
Nobody is advocating throwing 150m each at Crawford and Lee, but if there are reasonable values on the FA market the Jays have no excuse to not pursue them unless they are actively blocking a top prospect who could produce the same for less.

Ah but there's the rub.

The Jays have three positions committed just because of money, regardles of performance they won't be replaced by high dollar signings:

Wells, Lind, and Hill

They have three more than are - one would think - reserved for highly regarded young players:

Arencibia, Snider, and Escobar.

they have one one that's a big name guy who, shold he move, would be unlikely to be replaced by more performance hext year so let's go ahead and write him in

Bautista.

That leaves, at most, 3B and1B/DH and the only quality buy at 3B is Beltre which means he'll be well overpriced. So if you put Bautista at 3B you open up RF or LF

the only real quality buy in the outfield...is Crawford.

So unless your big free agent is a first baseman, it's Crawford.

So if we concentrate on 1B, there's Dunn (as expensive as Crawford), Berkman, Konerko, and Lee (all 35 next year) and Carlos Pena.

I don't think any of those are players that warrant us tossing big money at except Dunn maybe.

On the pitching side, with 4 very good guys and Drabek on the cust, and plenty of reserves should the need arise, there's just no need.

You might throw out another $5 mil or so to upgrade the closer spot (I could see making a run at Soriano) but otherwise, the need just isn't there.

So the bottom line is, yeah, if there's significant free agent money spent, you have to throw 5/75 or so at Dunn or Crawford, otherwise it's a matter of patching in players like we did this year with Gregg and Lewis and Buck.

Moe - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 02:49 AM EDT (#222129) #
There is no way Dunn gets 5/75. And Crawford will get more. I would guess 3/40 for Dunn and 6/100 for Crawford. If that's true, the Jays might consider Dunn for 1B. Except that he doesn't want to play there (at least in the past).


China fan - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 07:09 AM EDT (#222130) #

.....It just is very jarring how bad our lineup looks when we have this many regulars out....

This is a common myth in the fan community, but in fact it is quite an inaccurate statement.  The two main bench players, John McDonald and DeWayne Wise, have a higher OPS than any of the Jays regulars except Bautista, Wells and Buck.  (Overbay is just slightly ahead of McDonald, but behind Wise)  So, this season, when the Jays have given a rest day to a couple of their regulars, their lineup is not statistically worse.  In fact, the Jays should be praised for finding a couple of bench players who can produce good numbers -- better numbers than many of the regulars, this season at least.  I haven't seen anyone praising the Jays for their bench strength, but let's give credit where it is due.  Because of the success of McDonald and Wise this season, it's totally wrong to call it an "I give up" lineup when the two main bench players are in the lineup. 

Now if you're complaining specifically about McCoy and Hoffpauir, again it's a little unfair because you're ignoring the injuries to Lewis and McDonald.  Two of the normal "depth" players were unable to play because of minor injuries, so it's unfair to judge the team on the basis of yesterday's lineup.

China fan - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 07:18 AM EDT (#222131) #

....Just horrible. Oh well, only 4 more weeks!

I'm predicting a lot of astonishment next year among the anti-Gaston community when they discover that the next manager, too, will give occasional playing time to his bench players, especially when there are injuries (as there were yesterday).

China fan - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 07:22 AM EDT (#222132) #

.....I doubt it makes the 5th starters very happy.....

I think it's pretty obvious that Zep is not blaming Gaston's lineup choices for his poor pitching performances this year.

zeppelinkm - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 07:26 AM EDT (#222133) #

Call it a gut feeling, but I think a clever individual could spin the JP -- Dunn saga from the past into something positive. I have absolutely nothing to base that on other than my own life experiences. But I've always believed if you "rectify" a prior wrong, the individual can walk away more satisfied/happier than if he/she had never been wronged in the first place.

Dunn would be just one this lineup needs. A high OBP and SLG hitter. Hill, Dunn, Bautista, Snider, Lind - is going to move some runners With Yunel presumably as our #2 with his pretty OBP, that sets us up pretty well.

dawgatc - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 07:51 AM EDT (#222134) #
next year another year removed from surgery; I would expect littsch,rep,janssens,richmond to be a lot better than this year -wouldn't want to judge them on this year -we'll see
Moe - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 07:52 AM EDT (#222135) #
Here are some thoughts on Dunn's contract:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/contract-crowdsourcing-results-adam-dunn/

I find it unlikely that he'll end up in Toronto given his type A status and the Jays most likely having a pick in the 2nd half of the first round. And the DH issue. But the $$$s are not the problem.


Kasi - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 11:53 AM EDT (#222141) #
Your analysis only holds true China if Mac and Wise actually are better players then the people they're replacing. Yes they have better numbers this year, but do you think that holds long term? If so then why aren't they the starters and not the backups? Do you think they'd hold these numbers if they were full time players? I do not. Ruiz despite his great numbers last year was not a full time player, and neither are Mac or Wise. The reason the starters are who they are is because of their potential or past major league success. Maybe you think they have some Bautista in them and can break out, but I don't think anyone thinks that of either Mac or Wise. And I doubt either McCoy or Hoff will be here next year.

I have no problem with managers giving their regulars days off. What I do have problem with is giving 3 of them the day off in the same day. Personally I believe the days off should be spread around, while Cito prefers to go several days with an all regulars lineup and then have a day where he gets all the backups their time in. I'm really not sure which way is better for the team winning games. Cito's way might be better, but it is frustrating as a fan knowing that we have very little chance of winning because our lineup is so weak.

As for the 5th starters, of course Scrabble has no one to blame but himself for how he pitched. But still it's no fun pitching in front of a AAA lineup. And fans don't want to watch it either.

John Northey - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 12:58 PM EDT (#222142) #
If Dunn refuses to DH (as the article suggests) then I'd stay far away from him. As a DH he has a lot of value, as a LF or 1B not as much. The type A status also hurts as I'd hate to give up a 1st round pick in a deep draft to get a DH for 3 years.

This will be an interesting winter.
China fan - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 01:18 PM EDT (#222143) #
Kasi, you are missing the point.  Please try to read what I wrote.  I never said that McDonald and Wise should be full-time players -- why would anyone imagine such a bizarre thing?  What I said -- and the relevant point here -- is that in this season, in their role, inserted occasionally in the lineup by Gaston at the appropriate time, their numbers are as good or better than several regulars.  So, in that role, they are doing exactly what they're supposed to do, and the Jays haven't suffered when they're in the lineup.  Can you not even concede the obvious fact of their OPS numbers?

You're also wrong to claim that Gaston deliberately chose to bench 3 of his regulars on the same day.  Or do you blame Gaston for every injury too?  Encarnacion is injured, Lewis and McDonald are not completely healthy.  Gaston decided to give a rest day to Overbay and Snider.  Overbay suffered a near-concussion recently and could probably use an occasional rest near the end of a long season.  Snider had just played 11 games in a row (10 as a starter, one game entering in the 6th inning).  A rest day for the 22-year-old with the .741 OPS might not be a bad idea occasionally.  And even then, he entered the game in the 7th inning, making it 12 games in a row.  Do you actually believe that the Jays have an "AAA" lineup when Snider and Overbay are not in the starting lineup?  What a strange notion.

ayjackson - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#222144) #

I have no interest in Dunn.

I've heard mixed reviews on Lind at first base this year, but would not be opposed to Lind and Arencibia and Buck sharing the 1B/DH role next year, with Arencibia, Buck & XXX also sharing the catching duties.  (Albeit , XXX would probably be an emergency catcher only.)

I think we need to identify the long term solution at 3B.

A bench of JMac, BEmaus, Jeroloman and Mastroianni would be nice too. 

This probably isn't the "contend in 2011" team but it lays the groundwork for 2012 and beyond.

Kasi - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 02:23 PM EDT (#222145) #
My point was that even though their numbers are better then some of the regulars, that it still makes it a weaker lineup. Small sample sizes and all. Mac and Wise are not better players then those they are filling in for, although yes they have done decently in the role.

As for the lineup construction, sure Snider and Overbay need some rest days. Why not give Overbay the day off on Tuesday and Snider off on Wednesday? You missed my point, which was to spread the days off around. I can stand having a McCoy or Hoff or McDonald hitting 9th (or even 1st) if surrounded by Escobar and Buck/Snider. But putting Molina, Hoff and McCoy out there as 3 straight batters makes the bottom of our lineup unnecessarily weak in my opinion. Of course I do not know which way works better:

Option A:
1) Optimal lineup (best lineup you can put out there making of course fill ins for injuries)
2) Optimal lineup
3) Optimal lineup
4) 3 backups

or

Option B:
1) Optimal Lineup
2) 1 backup
3) 1 backup
4) 1 backup

Makes me curious if Fangraphs has done something on lineup construction. I know they say batting protection is a myth, but I'm not sure what they'd say about lineup construction. Might be something to try to ask Cameron or someone else during a chat there. I would think that option B is better, but I have no statistical proof to back me up
Mike Green - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#222146) #

I think we need to identify the long term solution at 3B. A bench of JMac, BEmaus, Jeroloman and Mastroianni would be nice too. This probably isn't the "contend in 2011" team but it lays the groundwork for 2012 and beyond

Agree, agree and mostly agree.  A team with young key pieces and salary room, which is likely to finish over .500, ought to be seen as a potential contender at some level.

It is possible that Bautista is the long-term solution at 3B, with Snider in right and Lewis/Thames in left. 


China fan - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 06:41 PM EDT (#222149) #
According to MLBTR, the Jays have claimed Taylor Buchholz off the waiver wire from the Rockies.  Buchholz is a 28-year-old right-handed reliever who is coming off TJ surgery.  He had a great season in 2008, but has played little since then.  Most recently he's been on the DL again, with back stiffness.  He had a brief stint in the majors in July of this year (10 innings, 9 strikeouts, 6 walks, 5 earned runs) before his latest DL stint.  He sounds like a reclamation project, but it seems to have worked for Shawn Hill, so the Jays are trying it again.
Manhattan Mike - Thursday, September 09 2010 @ 07:08 PM EDT (#222154) #

If Dunn refuses to DH (as the article suggests) then I'd stay far away from him.

Unless you are implying Lind is a much better defensive 1B (and I'm not sure how you'd know that), I don't see what is the difference.

I'm predicting a lot of astonishment next year among the anti-Gaston community when they discover that the next manager, too, will give occasional playing time to his bench players, especially when there are injuries (as there were yesterday).

Yes China fan, that's what people are upset about when it comes to Cito...and not the fact that, in September, Mike McCoy and Jarrett Hoffpauir are starting in lieu of Travis Snider. Injuries had nothing to do with that decision.

smcs - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 12:55 AM EDT (#222164) #
Makes me curious if Fangraphs has done something on lineup construction. I know they say batting protection is a myth, but I'm not sure what they'd say about lineup construction. Might be something to try to ask Cameron or someone else during a chat there. I would think that option B is better, but I have no statistical proof to back me up

It depends on the drop from 'optimal lineup' to '1 backup,' for one.  The problem with lineup construction in general, or predicting the outcome of specific lineups, and why baseball is, you know, fun to watch, is the utter inability to predict exact outcomes.  We can look at past outcomes (statistics) and guess about future outcomes, but we cannot predict what will happen next.  We can all agree that it is a bad idea for Tony La Russa to keep Albert Pujols on the bench in favor of a replacement level player over a long period of time, but it is impossible for us to say that Albert Pujols will definitely produce a better outcome than replacement level player in a game tomorrow.  I believe it would be a bad strategy for Snider, Overbay and Lind to lose at-bats to McDonald, McCoy and Hoffpauir over a long period of time, but it is utterly impossible to predict what will happen in the next game.  Over 600 plate appearances each, I would think the former would out-produce the latter, but over the next 4?  I have no idea.  Should we freak out if the starters for next year include McDonald, McCoy and Hoffpauir, with Bautista, Escobar and Snider on the bench?  Yes, absolutely.  We think that that, over time, the latter will outperform the former, but we don't know about any given day. 

So, relax, Yogi Berra was a genius when he said "In baseball, you don't know nothing."  September baseball for non-contending teams should be about contending in the future (hence the outrage at Buck over Aaron Cibia).  Last year, it was discovered that Jose Bautista can hit baseballs really, really hard.  We scoffed at the number of his at-bats last year, but aren't we happier for it?  Am I saying Hoffpauir will hit 40 home runs next year?  No, but I'm saying I don't know what he could do, so the only way to find out is let him play.
scottt - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 07:17 AM EDT (#222176) #
Yes China fan, that's what people are upset about when it comes to Cito...and not the fact that, in September, Mike McCoy and Jarrett Hoffpauir are starting in lieu of Travis Snider. Injuries had nothing to do with that decision.

JPA has been used as the DH in one game since the call up and that's it.
China fan - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 09:26 AM EDT (#222189) #

There are actually reports that JPA is getting some practise time at 1B.  The Jays might be trying to expand his versatility before they put him into a game this month.  They might see him as a 1B and DH type in the future, especially if they decide to bring back John Buck, who has done a brilliant job with the young pitchers while also ranking as one of the top-five catchers in the league in terms of OPS this year.

As for Jarrett Hoffpauir, of course that had everything to do with injury.  Encarnacion and McDonald were both injured.  I know that Travis Snider has a lot of fans, but even the most worshipful of his fans have not claimed that he can play 3B.

As for Snider's playing time -- he's now played in 13 consecutive games, including 11 in the starting lineup, despite producing mediocre numbers.  What more can anyone ask for?

92-93 - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 12:57 PM EDT (#222228) #
Enough with the ridiculous defenses China Fan. McDonald was announced as the starting 3B and then scratched for Hoffpauir. It's bad enough that Snider wasn't in the original lineup, but the injury to JMac should have meant Bautista moves from RF to 3B to accommodate Snider, not Hoffpauir getting a start. Hoffpauir & McCoy starting over Snider vs. Holland had everything to do with Derek being left-handed and Clarence's stubbornness and nothing to do with the injuries on the team.
Manhattan Mike - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#222230) #
"There are actually reports that JPA is getting some practise time at 1B. The Jays might be trying to expand his versatility before they put him into a game this month."

So does this mean that because he's getting infield practice with Butterfield, he's unable to get major league at-bats or starts at catcher?

"They might see him as a 1B and DH type in the future, especially if they decide to bring back John Buck, who has done a brilliant job with the young pitchers while also ranking as one of the top-five catchers in the league in terms of OPS this year."

Let's pretend that this is true. It would seem to be silly on the part of the Jays to convert a catcher into a 1B/DH when a) they're already doing this with Lind and b) it's very unlikely that the Jays are going to sign Buck to a long-term deal.

"As for Jarrett Hoffpauir, of course that had everything to do with injury. Encarnacion and McDonald were both injured. I know that Travis Snider has a lot of fans, but even the most worshipful of his fans have not claimed that he can play 3B."

Really? Have you even been paying attention? No one is suggesting that Snider play third. Bautista was suggested to play third, with Snider in the outfield. As opposed to having Hoffpauir or McCoy anywhere near the lineup, regardless of whos pitching.

"As for Snider's playing time -- he's now played in 13 consecutive games, including 11 in the starting lineup, despite producing mediocre numbers. What more can anyone ask for?"

If you can honestly say that you think Snider, the team's most coveted hitting prospect since the days of Delgado and Green, would be getting these starts had the injuries not occurred, there's no point in further discussion. The entire issue is that the dinosaur Cito is too set in his 'vet-first' ways (while, at the same time, protecting his legacy) to recognize the disservice he's doing to the future of the organization in not maximizing the PAs for Snider and JPA at present.
China fan - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 02:00 PM EDT (#222231) #
Snider has just played 13 games in a row, but you're still not happy?   And you want Bautista, the top hitter on the team, shifted around the lineup to "accommodate" a 22-year-old who has managed to produce an OPS of .721 during the near-constant playing time of those 13 games?   

Every other player on the team, from Wells to Hill to Escobar, is obliged to rest occasionally.  Why should Snider be exempted from this?  As for McCoy and Hoffpauir, they happened to be the back-ups who were available on that day, because of injuries.  Not sure why you're claiming that injuries aren't a factor.

The Snider fanatics will settle for nothing less than 162 games per season, starting with his age 21 season and continuing indefinitely, regardless of how he performs.

As for the absurd argument that Snider is getting playing time "only because of injuries"  --  well, the Jays just cannot win, because now you're condemning them for things that you IMAGINE that they WOULD have done, according to your magical insight into their brains.

The basic reality is this:  if you exclude the months when Snider was injured or in minor-league rehab, and if you pro-rate his major-league playing time over a full season, Snider would have gotten 450 plate appearances this season.  How is this hurting his development?   If he is as wonderful a player as his fanboys claim, it's time for him to produce, not to be babied.

Most players, in their second season as a regular, are judged on how they produce.  If they're on fire, or if they've produced a great season like Hill or Lind, they are given 6 or 7 games a week.  To expect the Jays to give 6 or 7 games a week to a player who is still struggling -- never to rest him, never to let him watch and learn occasionally -- is just absurd.

China fan - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 02:12 PM EDT (#222232) #

.....If you can honestly say that you think Snider, the team's most coveted hitting prospect since the days of Delgado and Green, would be getting these starts had the injuries not occurred, there's no point in further discussion....

So just to summarize your point:  you are so absolutely certain that Snider would have been benched for most of the past 13 games -- because you have gone back in a time machine, eliminated the injuries and witnessed exactly what happened in this imaginary scenario -- that we should ignore all the actual evidence of the past 13 games?  And you are so supremely confident in this hypothetical scenario that "there's no point in further discussion."   Wow.

92-93 - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 02:32 PM EDT (#222236) #
He has appeared in 13 games in a row but has started only 11 of them. So yes, I'm not happy that his first "off day" came vs. David Price while JMac & McCoy started, and the only reason he got into that game was a Fred Lewis injury. His next non-start came vs. Holland with McCoy & Hoffpauir in the starting lineup as well as both Molina & Buck. It would help the team's future a lot if Snider & Arencibia were seeing as many ABs as possible. Somebody like Mike McCoy should be up here to pinch run, not start over Snider, who isn't going to learn how to stay closed vs. tough LHP by sitting on the bench.
Mike Green - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#222237) #
May I suggest that contributions on behalf of Travis Snider and Cito Gaston to the poetry slam thread might be more constructive?  First line suggestions:

Trim Travis Snider
Cito in eighty nine

FWIW, I am glad that Snider is now getting more regular time and I continue to have a great deal of respect for Gaston despite his all-too-human failings.

ayjackson - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#222243) #

So just to summarize your point:  you are so absolutely certain that Snider would have been benched for most of the past 13 games

I couldn't find that it his comment.  I think he wants Snider to play everday instead of 50-75% of the time that he seems to get when all are healthy.  I think he believes the best way to develop young talent is to play them every day and take their lumps.  I think he disagrees with Cito in this regard.

Kasi - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 03:28 PM EDT (#222244) #
I'd be pretty happy if Snider would get playing time equivalent to 150-155 games over a full season. Basically a day off every 10-12 games.
China fan - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 03:54 PM EDT (#222246) #

I don't suppose it will persuade the critics, but Jeff Blair has weighed in on the Snider controversy, and he points out that Anthopolous is clearly supporting Gaston on this issue, and has a number of legitimate reasons for doing so.  Anyone who criticizes Gaston for Snider's playing time should actually be criticizing Gaston and Anthopolous, since AA could easily over-rule Gaston on this if he wanted.  (It was Anthopolous and his advisers, not Gaston, who decided to leave Snider in New Hampshire for 20 games this season -- which nobody seems to be attacking, since it's much easier to attack Gaston. But in retrospect, the 20 games in NH were a clear signal that the Jays braintrust is convinced that Snider still has some stuff to work on.  The issue, as others have pointed out, is whether the Jays were over-optimistic about Snider when they promoted him to the majors at the age of 21.  Having done so, and having seen Snider failing to improve very much since the beginning of 2009, the Jays are in a dilemma, which is reflected in Snider sometimes getting less than 7 games a week.)

Here is the link to the Blair article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/anthopoulos-savvy-enough-to-know-when-to-bide-his-time/article1700556/

ayjackson - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#222248) #

I think Blair inferred that AA was choosing his battles.  That kind of implies that Blair and AA both see it as an issue (Snider not getting enough playing time), but just don't think it's worth upsetting Gaston and his farewell tour over.

So if you're scoring at home, that's Gaston and China Fan in favour of sitting Snider regularly and AA, Blair and the vast majority of the bloggerverse against it.

Kasi - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 04:29 PM EDT (#222251) #
Yeah you misread that article bigtime China. Basically Blair said that AA is picking his fights here and doesn't want to clash with Cito when he is on his way out already. Really the meat of that article is about JPA, and I doubt many people object too much to him not catching much right now. He should be in there at DH more though. But as long as he is learning from Molina and Buck, it should be fine. I don't mind him moving to first either. The only discussion of Snider is that comment about for his age and such he's doing pretty well. Which he is, as anyone who has advanced knowledge of stats and peripherals could tell you. Even if you just go by OPS+, he's still above average.
Alex Obal - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#222254) #
So if you're scoring at home, that's Gaston and China Fan in favour of sitting Snider regularly and AA, Blair and the vast majority of the bloggerverse against it.

Too strong. Blair never says or implies this. Don't overstate the case...

Thomas - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 05:03 PM EDT (#222259) #
Anyone who criticizes Gaston for Snider's playing time should actually be criticizing Gaston and Anthopolous, since AA could easily over-rule Gaston on this if he wanted.

The first two paragraphs of that article are devoted to how difficult it would be for AA to overrule Cito on this issue. I presume it would be possible for him to do so, but to say it would be "easy" is missing the point of the entire article.

Snider and Arencibia are players in different points in their careers. It is not helpful to talk in general about a lack of playing time for young players and to combine the distinct scenarios facing the two players. One is an outfielder with parts of three seasons in the majors; the other a catcher not known for his defense who has less than 30 days in the majors. The article was mostly about Arencibia, whose situation is not the same as Snider's. As Blair and Kasi point out, Arencibia can certainly learn from sitting on the bench. Assuming he receives some playing time against Baltimore and Seattle and that it is Buck who is playing instead of Molina, this is an understandable arrangement and one that I do not have a particular problem with.

ayjackson - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 05:08 PM EDT (#222260) #

Blair never says or implies this. Don't overstate the case.

Blair (possibly editor) says this: 

Even with Snider and Arencibia needing playing time, Blue Jays GM aware that Gaston has earned the right to go out his way

The implication seems to be that Gaston's "way" is not the way of the GM, when it comes to Snider and Arencibia.  That has to be the inference.  The whole article is about Snider and Arencibia not playing as much as perhaps they should and that the GM doesn't feel the need to take on Cito on the issue.  Can it be any clearer?

ayjackson - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 05:12 PM EDT (#222262) #

Too strong. Blair never says or implies this. Don't overstate the case...

Okay, I think I see your point on further review.  We don't know that AA would have Snider playing everyday and Blair isn't reporting that he would or implying that he would.  It would probably only amount to the same suspicions that I have.

Alex Obal - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 05:28 PM EDT (#222263) #
Yeah, that's what I meant. Upon deeper reflection I see where you're coming from. "Could be worse," right. But he studiously avoids coming out and saying it. He respects AA enough to, I dunno, respect his non-answers.
Manhattan Mike - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 08:10 PM EDT (#222277) #
"So just to summarize your point: you are so absolutely certain that Snider would have been benched for most of the past 13 games -- because you have gone back in a time machine, eliminated the injuries and witnessed exactly what happened in this imaginary scenario -- that we should ignore all the actual evidence of the past 13 games? And you are so supremely confident in this hypothetical scenario that "there's no point in further discussion." Wow."

Yes. Snider was in a platoon situation before the injuries occurred. Further, it is hardly a stretch to assume that a manager who routinely starts the likes of Wise, McCoy, et al while JPA rides the bench would be unlikely to all of a sudden start giving Snider more regular playing time. If you can't understand that and need to make inferences about what you think AA's "real" feelings are towards Cito's determination to sit JPA and Snider, I can't make you think otherwise. Case closed.


TamRa - Friday, September 10 2010 @ 08:16 PM EDT (#222278) #
As for the absurd argument that Snider is getting playing time "only because of injuries"  --  well, the Jays just cannot win, because now you're condemning them for things that you IMAGINE that they WOULD have done, according to your magical insight into their brains.

You are carrying your argument at least one step too far. The argument arises not from anyone's imagination, but from the game log of games in which both lewis and Snider were options in the weeks preceeding Lewis' injury. It mightbe that you can argue Snider got sufficent time during those weeks, or not - but to argue your opponents are simply making up a situation without any supporting evidence is not fair.

Most players, in their second season as a regular, are judged on how they produce.  If they're on fire, or if they've produced a great season like Hill or Lind, they are given 6 or 7 games a week.  To expect the Jays to give 6 or 7 games a week to a player who is still struggling -- never to rest him, never to let him watch and learn occasionally -- is just absurd.

The useage of Adam Lind in 2009 is instructive to the contrary. Cito gave him a full time job on the heels of what could only be called "not producing" in his recent major league work.

You cannot simply reduce everything to "produce or don't whine. Did the Orioles sit Weiters when he struggled initially? Did the Jays sit Hill when he opened his second season with a month long slump?

Your argument is simplistic and ignores context. If you bring on Hoffpauir and he struggles, then he loses playing time....if you bring on Snider, (or any other universally lauded prospect) then it's a different situation.

So just to summarize your point:  you are so absolutely certain that Snider would have been benched for most of the past 13 games -- because you have gone back in a time machine, eliminated the injuries and witnessed exactly what happened in this imaginary scenario -- that we should ignore all the actual evidence of the past 13 games?  And you are so supremely confident in this hypothetical scenario that "there's no point in further discussion."   Wow.

I'm sure he's AT LEAST as certain as you can be given the evidence of the last 13 starts where Lewis wasn't an option. Which is to say, HIS sample (what happened when Lewis and Snider were equally available) is infinately more instructive than YOU sample (13 games in which one of those two was not an option) in terms of forming a hypothesis on what might have happened the last 13 games had both been available.

I don't suppose it will persuade the critics, but Jeff Blair has weighed in on the Snider controversy, and he points out that Anthopolous is clearly supporting Gaston on this issue, and has a number of legitimate reasons for doing so.  Anyone who criticizes Gaston for Snider's playing time should actually be criticizing Gaston and Anthopolous, since AA could easily over-rule Gaston on this if he wanted.


Oh please. Blair simply points out, correctly, that AA is oblidged to put up with Cito and make nice noises because, while AA can over-rule Cto, Beeston can get Cito's back.

It's nothing more than office politics. AA believes - rightly so I'm sure - that there is more long term strategic value in letting Cito have the exit Beeston wants, even if it costs the young guys 15-20 starts, than there is in antagonizing Beeston for that limited benefit.
IMO, of course, but also in Blair's.

(It was Anthopolous and his advisers, not Gaston, who decided to leave Snider in New Hampshire for 20 games this season -- which nobody seems to be attacking,

Are you kidding? there were great waves of whining about why Snider was down so long. And as for AA's decision on that, it was easy enough to analyze that in terms of the calendar that AA was playing for time with the deadline approaching and the possibility a trade would open a roster spot. That doesn't mean we didn't complain.

the upside is, though, that at least Snider actually got to play baseball in NH.

In any case, to stretch that to a conclusion that Snider had something else to learn in the minors is silly unless you are arguing it only took him 10 games to learn it (or the decided it didn't need learning after all, or that they screwed up by bringing him back when they did).


China fan - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 06:22 AM EDT (#222297) #

.....So if you're scoring at home, that's Gaston and China Fan in favour of sitting Snider regularly and AA, Blair and the vast majority of the bloggerverse against it.....

Wrong.  I never said that Snider should be "sitting regularly."  The reality is just the opposite -- Snider is playing regularly.  He's playing the equivalent of 450 plate appearances in a season, if you pro-rate his current time.  If he can't produce in 450 PAs, why would he magically start to produce in 550 PAs?  Given a choice between the concrete evidence of his playing time and the imaginary results of an extra 100 plate appearances, I'm saying that the actual results are more significant than the imaginary results of a few extra plate appearances.

 If you're keeping score at home, it's the entire Jays brain trust -- based on everything they know about Snider and watching him closely on a daily basis in the majors and the minors -- who have decided that there's nothing sinful if Snider is not playing every single game of the week in the majors.  That's the evidence.  As for the "vast majority of the bloggerverse" -- these are mostly casual fans at home, but even there the debate has been two-sided.  Look at the vigorous debate on both sides of the question at DJF, where many fans have defended the Jays on this.

The real question is why Snider has failed to improve over the past two seasons.  He's had more than 600 major-league plate appearances since September 2008, plus a slew of minor-league time, and he has failed to improve.  This is the elephant in the room, which his fans are conveniently ignoring.  They thought he would be a superstar by now.  He isn't, and they're blaming Gaston because they want a scapegoat.

At the beginning of the season, the Snider fans were enraged that Snider was batting 9th in the lineup.  This, to them, was evidence that Gaston was an idiot.   What ever happened to those furious reactions?  It quietly became clear that Snider does not deserve to be batting 5th or 6th in the lineup, and those fans have quietly abandoned that line of attack.  They were wrong, and Cito was right.   But nobody since then has admitted that.  No, they've raced off to find a different line of attack.  Why not admit that Gaston was correct on that decision?  Because that would damage their underlying belief that Gaston is an idiot.   If Snider is playing 7 games a week next year, and failing to transform into a superstar, I don't expect that any of these guys will admit that maybe Snider is slightly over-rated.

As for Anthopolous and Blair, go back and read the article, because you're misquoting it.  The article made it clear that there are reasons for Snider getting less than 7 games a week, which go beyond Gaston's last fling, and the article made it clear that both AA and Blair understand and accept it, even if Blair personally would like Snider to have more time.  They make it clear that a few missed PAs for Snider are hardly worth the freak-out uproar that they provoke among some fans.

Snider was never "platooned" and was never treated as a back-up.  He's been, essentially, a regular in the lineup.  Yes, there were a few games where he sat.  Yes, occasionally Lewis played ahead of him.  Those were a handful of games, which have been blown out of all proportion, as if it was a capital offence.  I've cited the evidence of the past 14 games, with Snider starting in 12 of those 14 games and playing in every single one of those 14 games.  Those 14 games (plus all the playing time that Snider received in April and May) should be more significant than the much smaller sample size of a few games where Lewis played in August, but the critics prefer to latch onto the smaller sample size.

At a minimum, the Blair article made it clear that there are two sides to the story, it's a complicated case, and it's not as black-and-white as the Snider fan base is making it out to be.  So why do his fans continue to use terms like "case closed" and "no room for discussion"?  

ayjackson - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 09:20 AM EDT (#222303) #
Well I'll agree to disagree with just about everything you said and move on.  What should we talk about next?
China fan - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 09:40 AM EDT (#222304) #

After misrepresenting the debate as "Gaston and China vs everyone else in the world," and after claiming falsely that I don't want Snider to have regular playing time, now you want to shut down the debate?

Fine, if you don't want to respond to my detailed points, let's move on, but just to clarify:  I'm not saying Snider is an unpromising player, I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve a lot of playing time, I'm not saying that he won't blossom in a year or two (and I hope he does).  I'm just pointing out that the issue is a little more complicated than "Cito bad, Snider great."   I'm saying that the difference between what Gaston gives Snider (5 games per week in August, 7 games a week in September) versus what his fans want (6 or 7 games per week) is so insignificant that it's hardly worth all the infuriated attacks on Gaston.  I'm saying that we shouldn't freak out every time Snider is rested, because he's only 22 years old, he's developing slower than expected, he is still learning a lot even when he's on the bench, he's still received a huge amount of playing time in 2010 and 2009, and he'll develop in his own time, regardless of the exact number of his PAs in August 2009.

 

Manhattan Mike - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 10:39 AM EDT (#222306) #
I'll respond one more time, simply because I don't want you to think that because everyone else thinks arguing with you is a lost cause, your logic is sound.

To your points in your longer email (by paragraph, I'm not going to copy and past for brevity's sake):

- Fact #1: Snider wasn't playing every day until injuries forced Cito's hand. Fact #2: When Snider would make a mistake that would be expected of a player his age, he rode the bench. Fact #3: JPA isn't playing at all (essentially). So the issue isn't that the anti-Cito folks think Snider will be a stud in those 100 extra ABs (and I don't agree that on a healthy team, Cito would be giving him 450 ABs), it's that giving those 100 ABs to players like Wise, McCoy, et al in the last month of a .500 season is pure idiocy when the alternative is to given them to players that are part of the future of the club! To say this another way, I don't care if Snider regresses in those extra PAs. I care about Snider and JPA getting those PAs so that they can develop as hitters for when the team is in contention. There is going to be a time in the future (hopefully when the team is competing) when Snider is going to have to face tough LHP. And JPA might be a legit prospect. Experience matters. Why you don't understand this is beyond me.

- How do you know what the Jays braintrust is thinking? All we know is what Cito is thinking, based on how he's filled out his lineup card over the course of his managerial career. This has shown a clear bias against developing players in favor of vets, particularly those in a contract year. Cito has said as much on many occasions. Anything beyond that is a huge leap. Again, this has been explained over and again. Your assumption that there's a consensus opinion simply because AA hasn't publicly forced anyone's hand has been countered by more than one poster. What don't you understand? Why would AA, in his 1st year as GM, get into a public pissing match with his "legendary" manager? What's to gain from it?

- To say that Snider hasn't improved is just silly. Look at his post-April stats. Remember how old he is, which is CRITICAL in terms of development. And this is ignoring the fact that guys like Ashby have pretty much come out and said that Snider plays as if he's scared that should he mess up in the field or at the plate, Cito will bench him. Period, end of story.

- Beggars can't be choosers. At the start of the season, we assumed that Snider would be playing every day. That this would be a key development year for him. So we were up in arms as to what spot in the lineup Snider was giving. This did not happen. Now that it's sort of happening, we're simply elated that the rational approach is being taken (for Snider... not for JPA) by Cito. Call it abused housewife syndrome. And, to your last point, when Snider and JPA are given enough ABs to make a proper assessment as to where they'll be as hitters down the road, the complaining will stop.

- I would suggest that you go back and read the comments. Again, no one is disputing that AA accepts that Snider/JPA aren't going to be given regular playing time with a healthy roster on a Cito-managed team. What we don't accept is your assertion that this is AA's preference. Inter-office politics for a young GM that has gone to great lengths to make friends among the upper brass and the press matter.

- No, Snider wasn't been a regular in the "all-healthy" lineup. You've cited the past 14 games as your proof... but injuries are playing a huge factor in why Snider is all-of-a-sudden playing every day! Further, this is all the more apparent in how Cito is managing the playing time of JPA, the next best ML-ready offensive prospect. If you don't see this, I can't help you.

- Again, of course there's two sides to the story. And its a given that we don't know what AA 'really' thinks. I acknowledged that many posts ago. Further, it's not black and white. But logic - that is, Cito's history with younger players, Snider's playing time with respect to his status as a prospect, JPA riding the bench, AA's affinity for young player development, the value of giving any PAs to players who aren't part of the long-term plan, etc.. - suggests that those against Cito's roster management are more right than wrong.
ayjackson - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 10:41 AM EDT (#222307) #

After misrepresenting the debate as "Gaston and China vs everyone else in the world," and after claiming falsely that I don't want Snider to have regular playing time, now you want to shut down the debate?

That's the way I roll.  I've never seen anyone win an arguement on the internet, anyway.  And you and Cito will do just fine on your own!

As for summarizing points, I rarely have one.  Though I guess I'd prefer Snider play everyday rather than sit while Lewis, Encarnacion, McCoy, and/or Hoffpaiur play.

ayjackson - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 10:43 AM EDT (#222308) #

*argument*

Sorry Dewey.

Mike Green - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 12:16 PM EDT (#222311) #
I've never seen anyone win an argument on the internet, anyway

Not for long.  With new Google Blog v.16.a, when an argument is won (as adjudged by the impartial server), the winning argument will be highlighted in red and blue, bells and whistles will be heard and in the bottom right-hand corner of  monitors all over the world, everyone will see tiny exploding fireworks.  Oh, happy day.
China fan - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#222313) #

.....Though I guess I'd prefer Snider play everyday rather than sit while Lewis, Encarnacion, McCoy, and/or Hoffpaiur play.....

Jarret Hoffpauir has had exactly 2 plate appearances for the Jays since July 2.    Mike McCoy has had exactly 4 plate appearances as an outfielder for the Jays since July.  But sure, if those 6 plate appearances are worth all the fury and outrage, go ahead, be my guest.  Personally I don't see what the fuss is about.

By the way, Lewis and Snider are both in the outfield for the Jays today.  Should be an interesting adventure.  Vernon Wells will have to cover a lot of ground out there.

China fan - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 01:14 PM EDT (#222314) #

......To say that Snider hasn't improved is just silly.....

Sorry, the statistics are undeniable.   Snider's OPS in 2009 was .748 over 276 plate appearances.   His OPS in 2010 is .740 over 249 plate appearances.  Where do you see the improvement? 

....This (Gaston) has shown a clear bias against developing players in favor of vets....

Not so clear as you think.  Tell it to Adam Lind, who was finally put in the full-time lineup as soon as Gaston arrived as manager in 2008.  As for the "veterans" competing with Snider, there is only one:  Fred Lewis, who was actually receiving FEWER plate appearances than Snider BEFORE his injury.  Gaston has made it clear that he thinks Lewis has power potential and he wants to groom the guy.  Having seen what Gaston did with Bautista, how can you call it "idiocy" to think that Lewis should get a fair chance to respond to the adjustments that Gaston and the coaches would like him to make?

.....Further, this is all the more apparent in how Cito is managing the playing time of JPA, the next best ML-ready offensive prospect. If you don't see this, I can't help you....

So you think that a catcher -- who had never played in the majors until August -- can be compared to an outfielder who has received 600 plate appearances in the majors?  There's no analogy at all.   There are plenty of reasons why the catcher is not playing every day -- and Blair's article is even stronger on this, with AA being quite clear that he supports Gaston's decisions on JPA.  If you think that the JPA situation has some relevance to the Snider situation, I can't help you.

.....Snider wasn't playing every day until injuries forced Cito's hand....

You don't know that injuries are the only reason why Snider is playing now -- you're simply asserting it on pure faith.  Quite possibly Snider would have gotten almost as much playing time even if Lewis was not injured.  You can't be certain.  Maybe Snider was still feeling the after-effects of his injury in August, still adjusting to his return to the majors, and by September he would have been receiving full-time play anyway, regardless of the injury to Lewis.  For further evidence, look at today's lineup:  Lewis is playing, but Snider is not benched -- he is in the starting lineup.  Is this the "platoon" that you claim exists?   If you want even further evidence of Gaston's decision-making, look at the lineup in April and May, when Snider played in virtually every game until his injury.  Or, for further evidence, look at the period since Aug. 1, following his return from injury.   Snider has received 118 plate appearances since the beginning of August.  Where is the "bias" against him?  Where is the "abuse" that you refer to?

.....of course there's two sides to the story....

Thank you for finally acknowledging this, which is my central point.  But if you really agree that there are two sides to the story, why do you describe Gaston's decisions as "pure idiocy"?  Not exactly a nuanced or open-minded view.  You've made up your mind and, for you, the case is closed.  I disagree -- there is another side to the story, and Gaston is not necessarily "idiotic" because he gave 118 plate appearances to Snider instead of the potential 135 plate appearances that the fans wanted. Is there really such a huge difference between 118 and 135 to warrant your conclusion that Gaston is an idiot?

TamRa - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 06:59 PM EDT (#222324) #
The real question is why Snider has failed to improve over the past two seasons.

That's not entierly accurate. He has hit slightly better this year than last year, and his first season suffers from "small sample size" issues.

He has 554 at bats coming into today, and a 101 OPS+

For comparison, Adam Lind in his first three partial seasons accumulated 676 at bats and a 95 OPS+ in his age 22-24 season.

If i wanted to drag myself through an hour on BR i'm certain there are dozens of other examples.

All that said, Snider's career is actually comprised of some 5 small disjointed samples:

80 good PA in late 2008
108 poor PA in early 2009
142 fairly good PA in late 2009 (good for a 21 year old)
130 good PA early this year
119 poor PA since his recall

As an aside - the combined total of late 2009 and early 2010 works out to almost exactly half a season, which pro-rated would have seen him accumulate a .240 BA with 36 doubles and 24 homers. and an OPS of .785 as a 21/22 year old. That's a pretty good foundation and considerably better than his previous work.

so really, your argument that "he hasn't improved" is based on 33 less than spectacular games.

but none of these samples is large enough, on it's own, to draw and serious conclusions about.

They thought he would be a superstar by now.


Who? He's 22.

At the beginning of the season, the Snider fans were enraged that Snider was batting 9th in the lineup.  This, to them, was evidence that Gaston was an idiot.   What ever happened to those furious reactions?  It quietly became clear that Snider does not deserve to be batting 5th or 6th in the lineup, and those fans have quietly abandoned that line of attack.

Bull.

Does he "deserve" to be hitting fifth? probably not, but Vernon Wells didn't deserve to be hitting 4th all last year if the stat line is your only measure.

does he deserve to be hitting in front of players like McDonald and Molina when they are in the line-up? Oh hell yes. does Cito still hit him ninth behind such scrubs? Yup. On occasion he does just that.
is this potentially confidence damaging to a young player? yup. is it possible Snider would produce better results if he got more respect? yup. Have those who criticized Cito for his lineup decisions fallen quite? Not in my experience. if any have it's only because there's really no point is saying "WTF is up with that lineup?' 162 times a season.

more importantly, the line-up isn't ALWAYS wrong, and only a fool continues to gripe about the wrong line-up from last week or whenever.

Why not admit that Gaston was correct on that decision?


Basically because he wasn't. He WAS right in some spots where I/we were wrong - Bautista, Buck, and Gonzalez actually being important offensive players - and credit where due. But hitting him behind McDonald and Molina and AAA dregs? Not so much.

But what's much more to the point here is that for all Cito's supposed wisdom about not moving a young player around in the lineup, he has done precisely THAT all season long. What's infuriating about seeing him behind McDonald or Molina is that sometimes he is and other times he's not. if he's EVER not, than why is he EVER back there?

Reviewing the line-ups on B-R, and ignoring the cases where Snider led off....

In the first three games he hit ninth, then in the next nine games he started he hit eight in front of either Molina, McDonald, or McCoy. so far so good. then he hit seventh in front of two of those guys. From there until he got hurt, he only hit Ninth when the line-up was full of the regular starters.
In hindsight, if anyone including me complained about him hitting behind Buck, then Cito was right on that and there's little to complain about pre-injury (in hindsight).

BUT after he came back, there have been six seperate occasions on which McDonald, McCoy, or Molina hit directly in front of Snider in the batting order. THOSE are the games where people rightly say "What the hell is going on in Cito's head?" because they business of hitting the young guy ninth behind any veteran had long since gone by the board.

and besides, if the only standard for where a guy lands in the lineup is production, why isn't Hill hitting ninth?

So, in summation on this point - you do have a point that those who thought it was crazy to bat Buck and Gonzo in front of Snider turned out to have not had a clear cut point given that those two hit much better than we thought they would. but that hardly makes Cito a genius since if he was the smart guy who knew how everyone would hit, Lind and hill would have spent the first half hitting 8 and 9. The truth is, it's post-hoc reasoning for you to cite two players who had career years as proof Cito was the smartest guy in the room.
But even to the extent you have something of a marginal point, that still doesn't justify the occasional inexplicable lineup in the last month and those who still can't figure out what he's thinking also have a point.


Because that would damage their underlying belief that Gaston is an idiot.


Cito is manifestly NOT an idiot, despite over-heated rhetoric. He IS on occasion stubborn, irrational, and overly-impressed with his own opinion.

If Snider is playing 7 games a week next year, and failing to transform into a superstar, I don't expect that any of these guys will admit that maybe Snider is slightly over-rated.

I'll admit that VERY few players are superstars at 23.

Given a choice between the concrete evidence of his playing time and the imaginary results of an extra 100 plate appearances, I'm saying that the actual results are more significant than the imaginary results of a few extra plate appearances.

What we do know is that Snider, at 22, has an OPS+ in irregular playing time of 101. Encarnacion, at 27, is at 106, and Lewis, at 29, has a 105.
We know that the older two are likely at their ceiling or close to it and Snider almost certainly is not. We know that , while Snider has been less than his best since getting back from NH, in the same time period Fred Lewis has an OPS of .592 (coming into today) so if "performance = playing time" for Snider, why doesn't it for Lewis? And we know Snider is a better defender.
We also SHOULD know that no case is well made based on less than 1/4 of a season's worth of games, which is what we have since Snider returned from AA.

I've cited the evidence of the past 14 games, with Snider starting in 12 of those 14 games and playing in every single one of those 14 games. 

Where's the relevance in citing games that EE missed entierly and Lewis missed most of? What does that prove at all in a discussion of how many games one plays vs another when all are healthy.

The relevant sample is July 30 (when Snider returned from AA) to August 28 (the last game before EE hit the DL)

That's 27 games. EE Started 22 of those, Lewis started 11, and Snider started 17.

So you are right that the "Why is Snider sitting?!" hue and cry is somewhat overstated, but the points you are making, the manner in which you are arguing, and the hostility in your tone is all considerably less than optimal to win the case.

Some of your points are innacurate....some of the claims you attribute to others are not, in fact, there opinion...sometimes you try to claim that your case is all fact based and there's is all supposition, while then turning around and supposing what others think and what they might say if some supposed outcome next year takes place...

all in all,even when your right you are making a very sloppy argument. And being awfully hostile in the process.

For example:

Those 14 games (plus all the playing time that Snider received in April and May) should be more significant than the much smaller sample size of a few games where Lewis played in August, but the critics prefer to latch onto the smaller sample size.

Ah but that is EXACTLY what you've been doing. In the five seperate periods Snider has been up, in three of them he's done quite well. Your entire case that Snider hasn't improved and that he doesn't deserve more respect and that he's over-rated is actually built on your perception of his last 33 games.
how do i know? Because Snider hit quite well in the April and May period you cite to expand your supposed sample compared to what either did in August.
which is no more or less valid than people criticizing Lewis for his play over the same period. You are just as much induldging in a small sample to make your point, while accusing others of having a weaker argument on that same basis.
In fact, the two have very similar playing time in the period of the second half where both were healthy, and Snider, while underachiving, hit considerably better than Lewis. in essentially the same sample and time frame. April and may are irrelevant because Snider wasn't underachiving then (and neither was Lewis)


sloppy.

By the way, Snider's playing time - and where he hits - are far from the only reasons that Cito takes heat. Often he suffers from perceptions generated from his own comments. if people use definitive language in their outrage, it's because it's pretty definitive that Molina doesn't need to hit in front of snider and McCoy doesn't need to start in LF while snider sits. sure these may be isolated cases, but they are certainly pretty obvious examples.

anyone who says "Cito is an idiot" is hopefully just exibiting typical internet hyperbole and doesn't actually believe that. but anyone who says "That's a crazy thing to do" has every right to attack that specific move. it doesn't necessarily make one a "Cito hater" to make note of the peculiar moves.
 

China fan - Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 08:06 PM EDT (#222326) #

.....You are just as much induldging in a small sample to make your point, while accusing others of having a weaker argument on that same basis....

In fact, I am urging everyone to look at the big picture:   the entire period of 2009 and 2010, not a few games in August when Snider was rested.  I've been pointing to Snider's entire statistics for 2009 and 2010, and his entire playing time.  During those two years (excluding his injury and minor-league time), he has been slotted in the starting lineup in the vast majority of the Jays games -- probably 80 to 90 per cent of available games.  For critics to focus on a handful of games when Snider was rested, over the course of two years, is highly misleading.  And then, on the basis of those handful of games, to judge that Gaston is "stubborn" or "making irrational decisions" or "an idiot" is (in my view) highly unfair.

.....the combined total of late 2009 and early 2010 works out to almost exactly half a season....

You are cherry-picking the results that fit your theory.   Why pick the half-season sample size when you could use a sample size that's twice as large -- i.e. the entire results from all of this season and all of last season?  I'm using the larger sample size, yet you think this is "sloppy."

.....There have been six seperate occasions on which McDonald, McCoy, or Molina hit directly in front of Snider in the batting order. .....is this potentially confidence damaging to a young player? yup....

When Snider has been hitting well, Gaston moved him up the lineup, as he did in May.  When he's been hitting poorly, Gaston has generally tried to protect him and reduce the pressure on him by putting him at the bottom of the lineup.   Nothing wrong with that.  I suppose there is "potential" that virtually anything could be "confidence-damaging" to some players, if their ego is fragile, but I don't think that a 22-year-old kid would be egotistical enough to expect to bat higher than the veterans.  Like it or not, Molina and McDonald are veterans, and it's not totally bizarre to put a veteran higher in the lineup than a 22-year-old youngster.  (McDonald even has a higher OPS than Snider this year.)  Anyway, by your own admission, it has happened only 6 times in the course of a season -- is this seriously going to damage his confidence?  Is this seriously worth the fuss and angst that some fans exhibit?  I also find it ironic that you're so concerned about Snider's confidence when the anti-Gaston community has always ridiculed Gaston whenever he talked about a hitter's confidence (for example when he cited "confidence" as one reason to keep Hill and Lind near the top of the lineup at the start of the year).  This is a good example of the inconsistency of the anti-Gaston crowd.  They ridicule him for talking about Hill's confidence or Lind's confidence and then they complain that he doesn't respect Snider's confidence enough.  In fact, Gaston has often moved batters around the lineup in an effort to kick-start their bats when they're in a slump, and I don't see why Snider would be exempt from this.  Finally, keep in mind that a lineup is never constructed on a simple basis of "top hitter at the top, worst hitter at the bottom."  There are many other factors at work in lineup construction, not just statistics.  You admit that Gaston did a pretty good job of predicting that Bautista, Buck and Gonzalez were going to hit well this season, even though the majority of fans never expected it.  That's another good reason to trust his lineup selection in most cases.  I'm sure that he has occasionally made a mistake in lineup choices, but do you really expect perfection in a sport as random and unpredictable as baseball?  

.....the manner in which you are arguing.....

I've tried to be polite and facts-based in my arguments.  In contrast, the anti-Gaston crowd is portraying him as a complete idiot.  I've never used the kinds of words that they're using.  I've generally been responding to criticism, rather than attacking people.  If you want to complain about "tone of voice", why not go after the fans who call Gaston "an idiot"?

.....So you are right that the "Why is Snider sitting?!" hue and cry is somewhat overstated....

Thank you.  That's all I am trying to say.

TamRa - Sunday, September 12 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT (#222347) #
For critics to focus on a handful of games when Snider was rested, over the course of two years, is highly misleading.  And then, on the basis of those handful of games, to judge that Gaston is "stubborn" or "making irrational decisions" or "an idiot" is (in my view) highly unfair.

It is true that Snider started 83 out of 93 games between is 2009 recall and his 2010 injury. Which supports your claim. but that doesn't mean it's invalid for a fan to scratch their head when Wise or, worse, McCoy starts and snider sits.
I'm going on the assumption that those who call Cito "an idiot" don't actually believe that - surely we can all agree that internet rants are well overloaded with hyperbole. But on the other hand, anyone who thinks Cito isn't stubborn hasn't been paying attention.
And what constitutes an "irrational" decision is always, of course, a matter of opinion. A lot of us would argue that 3 out of every 4 times you see Brian Tallet on the mound in 2010 it's an irrational decision. i think a case can certainly be made that McCoy in left and Snider on the bench is irrational. Snider doesn't need rest and wasn't being rested. McCoy was out there because Cito had some conceptions of who was a better matchup against that particular opposing pitcher. It's fair game to disagree with his decision making process on that.

You are cherry-picking the results that fit your theory.   Why pick the half-season sample size when you could use a sample size that's twice as large -- i.e. the entire results from all of this season and all of last season?  I'm using the larger sample size, yet you think this is "sloppy."

No you aren't, if so, you aren't making a claim supported by that sample.

You said "he has not improved" - but over the course of the two years you claim to be citing, he clearly DID improve from the first quarter to the third quarter. it's true that he is now slumping compared to the second and third quarter, but that only proves he's slumping. but you didn't say "he's slumping," you said "he's hasn't improved"

the only way you can support that claim logically is to base it ONLY on his post-recall sample.

Perhaps you misspoke?

When Snider has been hitting well, Gaston moved him up the lineup, as he did in May.  When he's been hitting poorly, Gaston has generally tried to protect him and reduce the pressure on him by putting him at the bottom of the lineup.   Nothing wrong with that.


Which is EXACTLY what Ashby alludes to when he says Snider is "playing scared" - because there are immediate reprucussions for having a bad game or making a mistake. which is, in many of our opinions, an irrational thing to do. He let Aaron Hill suck on eggs in the 2 hole for over half a season! Yes, Hill is a veteran and Snider is young, but is there REALLY that much pressure in hitting in front of John McDonald instead of behind him? REALLY?

Heck, even your explanation doesn't hold water because in the same time frame he was hitting behind non-hitters he also occasionally led off - so CLEARLY Cito wasn't "reducing pressure on a slumping kid"

An example: On Aug. 16 & 17, Snider led off...on Aug. 20 & 21 he hit BEHIND McDonald in the nine hole. what changed?
Another: 8/27 - Snider leads off / 8/30 snider hits 9th behind McDonald / 8/31 Snider hit's 8th in front of McDonald. What was different on the 31st than on the 30th?

If he needed "protection" for his fragile ego on the 30th, why didn't he need it on the 27th? If he was a better hitter than McDonald on the 31st, why was he behind him on the 30th?  any way you slice it, the lineup on the 30th makes no apparent sense.

If I may say, you are clearly rationalizing - your passion for finding some excuse for Cito's mystifying decisions is JUST as unsupported by the facts as anyone who calls him an idiot.

I suppose there is "potential" that virtually anything could be "confidence-damaging" to some players, if their ego is fragile, but I don't think that a 22-year-old kid would be egotistical enough to expect to bat higher than the veterans

In like manner, if the ego isn't fragile, then there's no need to "reduce pressure" by hitting him ninth instead of eigth or seventh.

Anyway, by your own admission, it has happened only 6 times in the course of a season -- is this seriously going to damage his confidence?

Six times in a limited period of time (since his recall) when he was supposed to be getting his feet under him. if it was six times over the course of a season you just shrug and go "Who understands Cito?" but six times within a month or so is more obvious, to the player and especially to the fans.

Is this seriously worth the fuss and angst that some fans exhibit?


Probably not. I've said as much. But I'm a bit of a student of argumentation and, IMO, even when you are right you are making your points poorly.

I also find it ironic that you're so concerned about Snider's confidence when the anti-Gaston community has always ridiculed Gaston whenever he talked about a hitter's confidence (for example when he cited "confidence" as one reason to keep Hill and Lind near the top of the lineup at the start of the year).

And double irony in reverse that you say that just after having said that Cito was "reducing pressure" (which can only be seen as protecting confidence) by his lineup decisions. In any case, to the extent that a player's confidence is at issue, it's OBVIOUSLY more at issue with an as-yet-unestablished 22 year old than it is for a guy coming off a Silver Slugger award.

You admit that Gaston did a pretty good job of predicting that Bautista, Buck and Gonzalez were going to hit well this season, even though the majority of fans never expected it.

I admit that Cito looks right in hindsight. That's not supporting evidence for anything really, because Gonzo hitting well was just as unexpected as Lind slumping. Cito favored the vets over the kid and it SO HAPPENED they hit well enough to make him look good. After all, if Cito knew what Bautista was going to do, he wouldn't have spent almost half the season hitting seventh most of the time.

Finally, keep in mind that a lineup is never constructed on a simple basis of "top hitter at the top, worst hitter at the bottom."  There are many other factors at work in lineup construction, not just statistics.


This much is true. Like the game in which Lind was the only LH left in the lineup because he'd hit the SP well - in a five at-bat sample. Lind went hitless in that game.
That is another example of "irrational" and it's something Cito does all the time. In fact, without evidence I'd guess the reason Snider found himself behind Molina or McDonald on occasion was because of just such a nonsensical hunch based on a tine sample.
and this from a man who CLAIMS he's loath to tinker with a lineup and will do things like hitting Kevin Millar at cleanup rather than move people around.

okay, IF you can marry yourself to a set lineup and play your worst hitter in the 4-spot, and you do that EVERY time...then you are at least acting rationally within the context of what you believe to be true....but then you turn around and do something completely different the next year - which in a different context and belief system might be internally rational (the whole "this guy has hit this pitcher well in the past" rubric for example) but if the latter method is rational, then the former wasn't - and vice versa.

I'm sure that he has occasionally made a mistake in lineup choices, but do you really expect perfection in a sport as random and unpredictable as baseball? 

Of course not. but do you really expect baseball fans to look at a puzzling lineup and say "I don't get it but i'm sure he knows what he's doing" and move on quietly?
Half the whole point in being a baseball fan is debating crap like that.

I've tried to be polite and facts-based in my arguments.

And saying so implies others are NOT "fact based" and that itself is insulting. In reality, you are spinning selective evidence every bit as hard as they are - the difference is that they are not claiming to have the corner on being "fact based"
you also seem to be implying that they are not arguing rationally which, ever how nicely you say it (and you have said things nicely for the most part) still comes off as "calm down and let me tell you where you are wrong"

Telling each other where we are wrong is the nature of internet debates, but no one here is attacking each other - and attacking public figures (i.e. "Cito is an idiot" is also part of the territory.

If you want to complain about "tone of voice", why not go after the fans who call Gaston "an idiot"?

Mainly, because I'm numb to it. you forget, you are talking to the person who banged his head against the wall trying to explain to JP bashers what the holes in their arguments were. But in my experience, once one became a JP Basher, you were oblidged to make strident, smart-assed, often nonsensical charges against him rather than make insightful true comments about the man's actual flaws (of which he had several to chose from).
The truth is, internet hyperbole CAN'T be stopped - people will ALWAYS say "Cito is an idiot" just like people will watch a jays game and see Wells strike out looking with a man on in the first and rant about what a complete disgrace he is, then watch him hit a three run go-ahead homer in the sixth and scream how much the love good ol reliable Vernon.

The reason i mentioned your tone is mainly because you had a decent case, which you were supporting with kind of sloppy facts and it was THOSE facts which you were most arrogant about - you were setting yourself up for a challenge on what yo thought were your best points.

I mean heck, i don't even entierly disagree with you and I think your overall point is a reasonable one and yet I've invested three long posts in pointing out the flaws in your argument. You probably can't change minds anyway but if you have a shot, you have to bring your A game and it doesn't seem to me that you did.

Not trying to be personal here, just pointing out why you had the whole crowd arguing against you.

92-93 - Monday, September 13 2010 @ 11:28 AM EDT (#222368) #
The only person who has repeatedly mentioned the words Cito and idiot are you, China Fan. Where do you keep getting this from?
China fan - Monday, September 13 2010 @ 12:12 PM EDT (#222374) #

Just to give one example of many examples:   look at a random comment from this very thread.  It's from Manhattan Mike, above, where he says:  "....giving those 100 ABs to players like Wise, McCoy, et al in the last month of a .500 season is pure idiocy....."   

And there are many, many other examples of that word being tossed at Gaston.   If I went through previous Batters Box threads, I could pull up many other examples.  Is it just "Internet hyperbole" as WillRain charitably calls it?   Perhaps, but the posters actually seem to believe what they are saying.

By the way, Manhattan Mike's comment is also factually incorrrect, of course.   In the final month of the season, Travis Snider is playing virtually every day, while McCoy has had only 6 plate appearances in the outfield since July.  (Wise has had a few more plate appearancses, but he hasn't taken any playing time away from Snider.)

 

92-93 - Tuesday, September 14 2010 @ 02:08 AM EDT (#222411) #
First of all, any game Wise starts and Snider doesn't is Wise taking at bats away from Snider, and it has happened. NYCMike didn't say he lost 100 ABs to Wise & McCoy, he cited them as examples, so he wasn't factually incorrect. You hurt your own cause when you put words in other people's mouth and misinterpret things to shape your own narrative.

And people can say/do idiotic things but not be idiots; there's a distinction between the two. I suspect Mike got the inclination to call Clarence's handling of Snider "pure idiocy" because you had mentioned "evidence that Gaston was an idiot".
China fan - Tuesday, September 14 2010 @ 06:03 AM EDT (#222412) #

.....people can say/do idiotic things but not be idiots; there's a distinction between the two....

So, first you claim that nobody called Gaston an idiot.  Then, when I point out an immediate example, you try to make a distinction between "idiocy" and "idiot."   And then, as a follow-up, you say Gaston is not an idiot, but he does idiotic things.   The distinction is so trivial as to be meaningless.   If I said to you:  "You're not an idiot, but you do idiotic things", would you feel it's a constructive critique?  I'll wager that you wouldn't be parsing the difference between those two phrases, you'd be dwelling on the insult.  Bottom line:  you were inaccurate to claim that nobody is calling Gaston an idiot.

As for the Manhattan Mike comment:  he specifically referred to "the last month of the season" and I pointed out that Snider is playing virtually every game of the last month of the season.  That's why it was inaccurate.   As for DeWayne Wise:  yes, he has occasionally played in the outfield when Snider is resting.  It's probably happened once or twice this season.  It's also happened that Wise has played in the outfield when Vernon Wells is sitting.  Everyone has to sit occasionally.  Why should Snider be exempt?

With every game that passes in the final month of the season, it's becoming increasingly obvious that Snider is getting plenty of playing time, and the attacks on Gaston are increasingly looking unfair and misguided.  But nothing seems to deter those who believe that Gaston routinely commits "idiocy."

A more interesting question would be:  why is Travis Snider slumping so badly, despite all the playing time?  In the 130 plate appearances since Aug. 1, his OPS is under .650 and his season OPS has dropped to .713.   He has 37 strikouts and only 5 walks in his last 130 plate appearances.  I'd be interested in hearing some analysis of what's wrong with his swing, his timing, his attitude or whatever.  Maybe his wrist injury is still affecting him, which would be worrisome.  Surely some fans would be concerned when the team's top prospect is in such a funk.  We've had a lot of analysis of Aaron Hill's slump, so how about some analysis of Snider?  But I suppose that might interfere with the narrative of "Gaston bad, Snider great."

By the way: another common attack on Gaston is that he should be playing rookies such as JPA in every game of September, even when the Jays are playing against the playoff contenders.  But according to a report on MLB.com yesterday, Anthopolous has come out with a very strong statement of the same kind.  He agrees that the Jays need to respect the playoff contenders by playing their regulars.  When Gaston says it, it is deemed to be ridiculous, but when Anthopolous says the same thing, nobody criticizes him.

Manhattan Mike - Wednesday, September 15 2010 @ 07:14 PM EDT (#222526) #
I do not think Cito is an idiot. I think some of the things he does are, to use hyperbole, idiotic. I don't want to go into the various examples of this. It's a waste of time.

And I find it very difficult to believe that AA thinks JPA should be sitting against teams like Baltimore while Wise gets (another) start. This could be AA picking his battles again. Gaston has said recently that it's important for TS to get playing time; perhaps this was a result of the subtle prompting made by others. Anything more than prompting CG to insert TS in the lineup every day may be pushing the envelope in terms of relationship-building.
The Bizarre Season of Aaron Hill | 83 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.