http://economics.about.com
I know it's just a single, but I love watching Hinske when he's on. Has anyone ever come up with a method to determine which players are streaky and which aren't? I'd imagine that Hinske would have to rate pretty highly.

Also, my girlfriend, who lives in TO, has mentioned that she'd like a Hinske jersey. Should I be worried? :)

MP

Mike,

With your clean-cut looks, baseball acuity and economic savvy? Hell yes you should be worried.

http://economics.about.com
I'll just have to make sure that I keep my batting average higher than his. Seeing as I play rec slow-pitch, it shouldn't be too hard. He still might outslug me, tho.

.500/.600/.550, here I come!

Great to see the Jays break out to an early lead. It looks like the bandwagon is getting pretty light these days, tho.

MP

By the way, I'm watching Mussina pitch against the Mariners -- is it me or does Moose look like Pedro Martinez this year? His fastball is about five-mph longer, his curve is biting more than usual, and his command is sickening. I hope he avoids his two-inning, 10-run debacles and wins the Cy Young this season. He deserves it.

For all the talk about Greg Maddux being an intelligent pitcher, Mussina is every bit as cagey. And not just because he has a degree in Economics from Stanford.

Also, my girlfriend, who lives in TO, has mentioned that she'd like a Hinske jersey. Should I be worried?

My ex had a large collection of Tie Domi memorabilia. That was pretty worrying.

http://economics.about.com
I used to assume that economics wouldn't be a popular major for ballplayers, but it's the most popular one at the University of Rochester. I think 25% of the varsity team is econ majors. I'm tutoring a couple of them in econometrics, very bright guys, both scrappy middle infielders.

Tonight's my night off, so I'll probably head down to a sports bar and watch the Yanks. It's a little more exciting than watching Gamecast. I need cable.

MP

and more bizarre bullpen usage from the skip. Lopez makes ARod look silly for the K and is then lifted so another rightie can face Palmiero.

Look what Little LaRussa got himself into...Aren't all those pitching changes cute?

A brief shot off an exasperated Ricarddi counting the number of hurlers this inning.Yes J.P. 5 of them,I wonder what he thinks of all of this?

Aquilino gets brought into the game and strikes out A-Rod on 3 pitches. A-ROD! Good job kid. So, what does Tosca do next? How does he reward the great job? He brings in Pete Walker, who quickly gives up back to back jacks to Palmeiro and Gonzalez.

Carlos...the excessive maneuvering...it's a bit much don't you think? Why do you persist with a strategy that hasn't worked for you yet?

Is it possible that Tosca is a good teacher but a terrible strategist and the former was the reason he had such success in the minors? Dave, if you were to give Tosca a grade, I think you'd have to give him an F. Well, a D- at best.

Welcome to the new closer - Cliff Politte.

Excellent. There's always the chance Escobar gets his job back if he regains his form, but if Politte continues to pitch well, there won't be a closer controversy in Toronto.

POLITTE!!!!!

8th inning, I saw it and I still don't believe it, thank God for Politte

I think we'll read tomorrow that Escobar hasn't lost the role to Politte at all. Tosca doesn't play that way, I think. He's one of those, 'get him back out there on his horse' kind of managers. Escobar pitched two days in a row, and he'll still need those shiny "saves" next to his name to ever get any trade value for him.

Also, my girlfriend, who lives in TO, has mentioned that she'd like a Hinske jersey. Should I be worried?

My girlfriend was ecstatic to get her Jason Giambi bobblehead, and now wants a Josh Phelps one....

Yes, gentlemen, we can be replaced.

Well, I seriously doubt Escobar will see a save situation for at least two weeks. And, as I said, if Politte seizes the role, Escobar's days of closing for the Jays are over. J.P. and crew will have to take what they can get, the presence or lack of saves in Escobar's stats. My guess is there is still a market for a 28-year-old pitcher who throws gas with a vicious forkball. Ricky Bottalico kept getting chances, and so will Escobar.

That said, I'm not convinced Escobar still can't help the Jays as a starter, if they think his arm can hold up. There certainly is a need in the rotation.

http://economics.about.com
Terrific win for the Jays. Nice to see Politte get the save.

The number of relievers used drives me up the wall as well. I'm not sure if it's my admiration with Earl Weaver and Whitey Herzog, or the fact that if someone pulled me off the mound when I pitched in highschool I'd probably throw my glove at him. But I also don't think it's particularly effective.

The Jays have now used 105 relievers in 29 games. That puts them on pace to use 587 relievers this year. I think the major league record is less than 500, though someone will have to back me up on that. So the constant switching of pitchers isn't just in my head.

The switching is largely due to the ineffectiveness of most of the bullpen as of late, so I think they'll finish well under that projection, just as they'll finish over the 61-101 they're projected for right now.

That's just picking nits, tho. It's good to get the W.

MP

Off topic: MLB.com is giving a free preview of MLB TV from May 1st to May 4th. The picture is looking pretty great and is cheaper than getting the Extra Innings package through Mr. Rogers' digital neighborhood.

Brandon Duckworth's sinker is sick...the good kind.

I recall Bill James being asked last year what he thought about frequent mid-inning pitching changes. He said that not only did he find it "excruciating to watch" but as a strategy "it doesn't work" (the quotes are from memory and probably aren't word-for-word accurate); if he elaborated on why "it doesn't work", I don't remember it now.

(I can't find a reference to this comment in my notes of the James' interviews on MLB Radio last year, but it might have been in his Aug 21 interview on baseball rules and how to speed up the game; that one was my favorite of his interviews last year.)

The switching is largely due to the ineffectiveness of most of the bullpen as of late

Is it? Or is the ineffectiveness of most of the bullpen largely due to all of the switching as of late? We'll never know but it's food for thought.

No save opportunities for Escobar for atleast two weeks? Though it would be a good sign to see Tosca show some flexibilty once in a while, having to do with anything, i'd be very surprised to see this happen for any legnth of time. Escobar's been real ugly all year long and deserves to lose some ninth inning gigs to Politte. Hopefully it finally happens. If the Jays had the courage to do what Boston is giving up on, there'd be some nice options in the 8th & 9th innings between Politte, Lopez, and Escobar.

Just because the bullpen has been shaky, I don't see how going through MULTIPLE relievers helps you in any way whatsoever. If you have a reliever that gets an out, why not stick with him (especially with a three run lead) until he gets in trouble?

When you lack depth in the bullpen, why does using MORE relievers in high leverage situations help you? Short answer is: it doesn't.

Tosca's bullpen usage smacks less of caution and more of pure panic. Walker offers no discernable advantage over Lopez...in fact Lopez has a decent changeup and isn't terrible versus lefties. All you had to do was let him retire ONE more batter with a three run lead. If you can't trust him there he shouldn't be on your roster.

I'm with Gitz, try Escobar in the rotation.Yes I'm aware of his "circulatory " impairment but frankly I think its in his head more tham anything.He's doing so poorly what do the Jays have to loose? The only recent success Escobar has had was in 2001 during his trial as a starter.Escobar has a great arm but needs a few innings to settle into a rhythm,something a reliever can't afford.

Well I won't bother mentioning that I've been saying since the 2001 off-season (when it was first learned Escobar would move to the closer role) that Escobar should remain a starter. Ok I just did.

The fact of the matter is that right now he has to be a long reliever or even a starter to get enough innings to recover his control, velocity, and confidence to a point where he has any value. Lopez should be setting up Politte for the time being.

Clearly there is either something wrong with Escobar or he's completely lost his mind this year. After what happened with Carpenter last year, I might consider doing an MRI on Escobar's shoulder and/or elbow. Maybe he's hiding something or is unaware something is wrong.

By the way, I'm watching Mussina pitch against the Mariners -- is it me or does Moose look like Pedro Martinez this year?

The whole Mussina and Vazquez thing is making me a little upset... they were my first two draft choices last year, and they both repaid the favour with off years.

And speaking of disappointing pitchers I drafted early... Halladay's homers are getting to be something of a concern. I think he's leading the majors in homers allowed.

Halladay is consistently hanging breaking balls and getting his fastball up belt high. He has to work on finishing his delivery and getting those pitches back down around the knees and in the dirt. Using a four-seam fastball high to change up the hitter's eye level might be useful to him as well. Also, he should throw far fewer breaking balls. The majority if not all of the homers off him have come off hangers.

I'm not absolutely sure but I think it was announced after the game that Escobar would return to the starting rotation. I'm shocked. I hope he gets some time to build up in long relief first because right now he just can't plain get anyone out.

Hey Gitz, it would seem our 'who's the closer' points are going to be moot. According to Rotoworld, Tosca's saying Escobar is headed back to the rotation. Now, isn't that neat-O.

http://rotoworld.com/display2.asp?sport=MLB&page=players&X=5841&Y=0

Who would have thought that "quality third starter" was right under our noses this whole time?

I can't see how this could possibly go wrong at all.

Who is Escobar going to replace in the rotation? Hendrickson?

I can't see them pulling the plug of Sturtze, and they just gave a starting spot to Doug Davis.

I can't see how this could possibly go wrong at all.

Can this go wrong? Can Escobar tank as a starter? Most definitely. But I still think the experiment is a good idea.

First, there are rotation spots are up for grab, even if just for the short term. So it's not like someone more deserving is going to be screwed out of work.

Second, if Escobar is to turn things around this season, he's got to get some innings under his belt. He can do that pitching the odd inning in blow-outs (which have been, admittedly, far too frequent). Or he can get a guaranteed block of innings in one or more starts.

If a miracle of miracles happens and Escobar doesn't stink as a starter, I don't imagine he'd be moved out of the rotation. As I said in another thread, the team's best chance of moving Escobar is if he goes Robert Person and becomes a not-terrible starter.

Woah! That's interesting news about Escobar. Well, he can't do worse in the rotation than he's doing now.

I assume that Escobar replaces Hendrickson in the rotation. Lurch goes to long relief, and Kershner gets sent down for Davis. Hendrickson will probably be held back to pitch behind Escobar, as Kelvim will need time to stretch out his arm.

The rotation will then be Halladay/Lidle/Sturtze/Escobar/Davis.

I have a theory about Tosca's use of pitchers: maybe he's determined that lots of little outings cause less strain on pitching arms. I see no other reason to switch pitchers so often, except to impose managerial authority or something.

I have a theory about Tosca's use of pitchers: maybe he's determined that lots of little outings cause less strain on pitching arms. I see no other reason to switch pitchers so often, except to impose managerial authority or something.

I think it's simply a case of La Russian style over-managing.

Have you noticed that of the 7 relievers, only Tam is averaging more than 1 inning per appearance?

I'm also in favour of Escobar returning to the rotation, with the usual numbness caveats. And he could theoretically be a lot better than average in that role - remember the end of 2001?

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Hendrickson will be the odd man out. I think he's in competition with Davis (and, really, Escobar), and the decision will be made once Escobar's training wheels come off.

I hope that they'll start to lean on Lopez more as the year goes on, much like they did with Thurman.

My recollection (from a discussion of Herzog's moves in a particular game) of Bill James's opinion about using a lot of pitchers in one inning is that he thinks:

a) you stand more of a chance of finding the one pitcher who doesn't have his stuff that day, but
b) Herzog sees it as his job to get the best available matchup, regardless of who feels what that day, and he's right, but
c) it sure looks ugly when it doesn't work.

Of course, James commented elsewhere that having a roster constructed to allow frequent pitching changes costs you a lot more in bench strength than it gains you in platoon advantages, and also that it's better to have a good pitcher without the platoon advantage than a bad one with.

Well Roy Halladay has not been terrific against lefthanded pitching this year. I think almost all the homeruns off him are from that side of the plate. Why then is he good enough to go 7 innings?

That may not be the most rational argument but if a starting pitcher can go 7 innings, why with a 3 run lead can a reliever not go an inning or even two innings without exhausting the whole pen and leaving the team with zero options if the closer fails?

The reason starters have had to stay in to save the pen is because virtually everyone in the pen is forced to get up and warm everyday. If the relievers aren't there that can go multiple innings then get them. Otherwise what we've seen so far won't be an abberation, it will be a way of life for this team.

Does anyone have any stats on SkyDome offence with the roof closed as opposed to open? Are the pitchers really this terrible? How can we account for league average pitching on the road and Colorado playing in zero gravity pitching at home?

http://economics.about.com
The switching is largely due to the ineffectiveness of most of the bullpen as of late

Is it? Or is the ineffectiveness of most of the bullpen largely due to all of the switching as of late? We'll never know but it's food for thought.

I think it's a bit of both. That'd be really unfortunate, because it's create a feedback loop. Use Lots of Relievers --> Relievers Perform Poorly --> Use More Relievers in Reaction --> Relievers Perform Even Worse --> etc.

Those things are hard to get out of unless someone goes lights-out for awhile and breaks the cycle.

Has anyone done any studies looking at the effectiveness of 5 man pens vs. 6 man pens vs. 7 man pens? I'd be interesting in seeing the results.

MP

http://economics.about.com
Err.. I mean "it creates". I really ought to use that preview function.

Well the Jays had ten man staffs for both World Series wins I think. Of course, those were ten high quality pitchers. And eventhough $50 million today doesn't buy you what $50 million back then did, I definately MUCH prefer quality over quantity.

Sometimes it's good to take money from a single player (Cruz) and spread it over multiple positions (Cat, Sturtze, Myers, etc). Particularly when you have little choice. But I don't think it works the same way for pitchers. A pitcher who is effective against righties and mildly effective against lefties is worth a lot more than one who is strong against one and nearly helpless against the other. That usually means you have to pay a bit more but let's say that Politte costs $2 million his first time out in arbitration...you're certainly not going to trade him and then sign three guys like Tam and Creek and call that a sound move.

The Jays need to stockpile several relievers like Politte if they're going to have a major league quality pen. Lopez was a good pickup but if you're only ever going to trust him against one or two batters at a time then there's not much use to him. Tam I think is a decent long-man but he doesn't belong in close games...not unless the Jays get themselves gold glove defence at every infield position.

I will commend the Jays for finally relenting on Escobar. He put up 2001 starting numbers nearly as strong as Halladay and the Jays inexplicably decided to hamstring themselves by taking a developing power arm out of the rotation. Even if all Escobar manages is something in line with his .500, 4.78 career starting line, that's better than a lot of what they've tried.

I think the thing that concerns me about moving Escobar to the rotation is that it seems a little sudden. I mean, it's no secret that Escobar sucked as the closer last year. So, why wait until a month into the season to move Politte into the closer's role and Escobar into the rotation? Wouldn't this decision have been much better in the offseason, where Escobar could have built up his stamina, tested the circulation problem, and maybe even get some Winter League starts before Spring Training?

Don't get me wrong. Ultimately I think it's a good move. It just seems a little spontaneous.

I think it's simply a case of La Russian style over-managing.

Like pinch hitting Greg Myers for Josh Phelps in the Boston series.

Great move, skip.

I think it's just a matter of admitting after what was witnessed for stretches last year and most of April, that Escobar is no more stable or reliable over a short stint than he is over a long stint. There isn't much evidence to support that his concentration or command wavers any more over multiple innings but that was the original rationale for making him a short reliever...that he wouldn't have as much to think about and could be effective one inning at a time.

But if you have such poor rotation depth, I don't know how you can afford to take a guy who was having good success in the second half of 2001 as a starter and turn him into a one inning guy.

R Billie,

It was all due to that mysterious numbness. You can't have a starting pitcher that lost feeling in his arm after 4 inning - it would kill your bullpen to have to pitch that many relief innings.

If this condition recurs, then the Jays may decide to go with an unorthodox option - the starting pitching pair, i.e. link Davis and Escobar for every game and have each of them go 3-5 innings.

If this condition recurs, then the Jays may decide to go with an unorthodox option - the starting pitching pair, i.e. link Davis and Escobar for every game and have each of them go 3-5 innings.

I can't remember which manager it was -- maybe Whitey Herzog? -- who said he'd love to start Phil Niekro for three innings and follow him up with Nolan Ryan. The batters would never know what hit them....

Anyway, count me among the supporters of this move. Escobar has no future in this organization -- successful or not in '03, he's still going to be too expensive to keep around in '04. His trade value right now is subzero, so why not take a crack at making him attractive as a starter? May's going to be interesting....

http://economics.about.com
If this condition recurs, then the Jays may decide to go with an unorthodox option - the starting pitching pair, i.e. link Davis and Escobar for every game and have each of them go 3-5 innings.

If the Jays did this, I'd take back everything negative I've ever said about the Jays in-game strategy. I think having Davis go five than Escobar go 4, then 5 days later have Escobar go 5 and Davis 4 would be inspired, and it would really mess up a lot of lineups.

I think having a 8 day rotation like this:

Day 1: Ace 1 [6IP], Reliever 1 [3IP] (Reliever 2 if necessary)
Day 2: Pitcher A [5IP], Pitcher B [4IP] (Pitcher D if necessary)
Day 3: Ace 2 [6IP], Reliever 2 [3IP] (Reliver 1 if necessary)
Day 4: Pitcher C [5IP], Pitcher D [4IP] (Pitcher B if necessary)
Day 5: Ace 1 [6IP], Reliever 1 [3IP] (Reliever 2 if necessary)
Day 6: Pitcher B [5IP], Pitcher A [4IP] (Pitcher C if necessary)
Day 7: Ace 2 [6IP], Reliever 2 [3IP] (Reliver 1 if necessary)
Day 8: Pitcher D [5IP], Pitcher C [4IP] (Pitcher A if necessary)

So you'd need 2 "Aces", 4 "Pitchers" that essentially are long relievers, and 2 "Relievers". You'd probably also want to have a 1-2 inning closer that can come in if necessary, and a mop-up guy for blowouts. So it'd be a 10 man pitching staff, but the ways the pitchers are used would be a lot different.

It's essentially a four man rotation, but A & B, and C & D switch roles every alternate start. Plus you could pair the pitchers off so that they're contrasting in styles, to throw off the batter.

MP

http://economics.about.com
If we used the Jays for this, I'd have "three" aces: Halladay, Sturtze, and Lidle. So we'd have something like:

Day 1: Halladay [6IP], Walker [3IP], Tam, Politte, Davis if nec.
Day 2: Lidle [6IP], Hendrickson [3IP], Tam, Politte, T. Miller if nec.
Day 3: Escobar [5IP], Doug Davis [4IP], Tam, Politte, Walker if nec.
Day 4: Sturtze [6IP], T. Miller [3IP], Tam, Politte, Hendrickson if nec.

Day 1: Halladay [6IP], Walker [3IP], Tam, Politte, Escobar if nec.
Day 2: Lidle [6IP], Hendrickson [3IP], Tam, Politte, T. Miller if nec.
Day 3: Davis [5IP], Escobar [4IP], Tam, Politte, Walker if nec.
Day 4: Sturtze [6IP], T. Miller [3IP], Tam, Politte, Hendrickson if nec.

So here Tam is acting as an emergency long reliever, and Politte as a short reliever/closer. The Jays would want to keep Lopez around as a second short guy, so the Jays would have 11 pitchers, not 10. Or you could replace Tam with Lopez and have Lopez pitch as a long reliever.

MP

I think having Davis go five than Escobar go 4, then 5 days later have Escobar go 5 and Davis 4 would be inspired, and it would really mess up a lot of lineups.

Yeah, but probably only the Jays' lineup.

This strategy is predicated on (a) these guys even being able to last that long and (b) not ending up in a close game where you'd want to relieve with your better pitchers and throw plan A out the window.

It's not clear that the two-headed Davis/Escobar beast could even get you to the 5th inning, let alone combine for a complete game.

I don't believe this 2 SP strategy can realistically work. Basically, it's a tacit acknowledgement that you expect the first guy to tank early and be relieved by a pre-identified mop-up man.

If Escobar is to be Davis' mop-up man on Saturday (or whenever), fine, but only as a plan B to Davis not pitching well, not as a pre-defined strategy.

http://economics.about.com
I don't believe this 2 SP strategy can realistically work. Basically, it's a tacit acknowledgement that you expect the first guy to tank early and be relieved by a pre- identified mop-up man.

It's far from it. It's just holding the pitchers to a very strict limit, which means that hitters won't see them more than 3 times a game, preventing them from being too comfortable.

That's why I think it's better under a 4 man rotation, but it'd work well under a 5.

The problem is, Escobar probably isn't going to last more than 5 innings, just due to the fact he probably isn't conditioned for it right now. So the Jays would have reliever pitch four innings. Given the fact that Jays relievers are average 2/3rds of an inning per outing, you'd need 5 or 6 them to finish the game. Doesn't it then make sense to have a guy designated for long relief in that situation?

I don't even want to talk about how boring 6 pitching changes would be.

MP