Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

Last Wednesday, I wasn't sure the pitching matchup at SkyDome would be a classic, mostly because of Kelvim Escobar's inconsistency at home. He wasn't bad, pitching into the seventh inning, and leaving a 3-3 tie in the capable hands of Jason Kershner (who got the W) and closer Aquilino Lopez.

Mike Mussina is a great pitcher, but the Jays made him work very hard last week -- 122 pitches in six innings -- so he didn't figure in the decision. Though he's 16-9 with a 3.08 ERA in his career against Toronto, he's been less dominant in 2003 -- 2-2, 3.82 in five previous starts. In Yankee Stadium, Moose shut them out on three hits in April, then the Jays prevailed May 23 behind Escobar, making just his second start of the year.

Familiarity is often an advantage to the hitters in these situations, but both pitchers have such great stuff, they aren't easy to hit even when you know what's coming. Today could be an even better duel.

There are no surprises in the lineup. LF Frank Catalanotto, on fire lately, leads off. Reed Johnson gets a rest against the nasty righty; RF Bobby Kielty bats eighth. C Greg Myers has four singles and two walks in 12 PA vs. Mussina this year. DH Josh Phelps has struck out six times in 12 AB, but has a double and a homer. Mike Bordick will be at SS, batting second. For the Yankees, as the Advance Scout predicted, Posada sits, with John Flaherty catching. Mike D also guessed right on Jason Giambi, who is the DH, despite a N.Y. Daily News report that he would be rested.

This makeup game means plenty to the Yankees, as they try to hold off the Red Sox for the division title. From the Jays' perspective, it's about bragging rights; the season series is at stake. It's also a chance to build on the momentum of a weekend sweep, three straight series wins and a 7-2 record in their last nine. A Jays victory would put them at 73-70 with 19 games remaining -- seven with those pesky D-Rays, six vs. the Orioles, three each against the Tigers and Indians. It's reasonable to expect they could finish 12-7 and reach the 85-win goal set in spring training by Carlos Tosca.

Whether you're following on radio, TV or the Internet, enjoy the game.

Posted by Coach on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:55 PM EDT.

Game 143: Rematch | 42 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Craig B - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:02 PM EDT (#92436) #

Why waste it? Before Coach snuck in under the deadline, I had my own Game 143 thread ready to go, so... "The Jays visit the Bronx today for the lone afternoon game, which should mean plenty of eyes watching the scoreboard updates. Kelvim Escobar has a good chance to shut down a Yankee lineup that couldn't hit water falling out of a boat this last week... six runs in three games against the Sox, seven in three games against the Jays.

MVP candidate Jorge Posada's getting a rest so John Flaherty is behind the plate for the Bombers; the Jays have their best lineup out there with Cat in left (fresh off his big game yesterday), Kielty in right and Phelps (on a tear) at DH."

Everything I ever learned, I learned from Kent.

Now where's that radio...

Coach - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:24 PM EDT (#92437) #

Everything I ever learned, I learned from Kent.

Including how to blow smoke like that?

I'm fond of reminding my high school players that I taught them everything they know about baseball, but not everything I know.

Vernon Wells hit a 2-out single in an otherwise easy inning for Mussina -- two popups and a nasty curve to fan Delgado.

Soriano hit long foul balls down both lines before singling to left. O-Dawg made a great effort to climb the tarp for a Johnson foul ball, but it hit the heel of his glove. Kelvim then threw a cutter or something on a pitchout, crossing up Crash, and proceeded to walk Nick the Stick. Jeter laid down a perfect bunt, so good that Hinske had no play -- everybody's safe, nobody out. This could get ugly.

Craig B - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:25 PM EDT (#92438) #

Single, walk, single... notthe best of starts. Jeter's bunt sounded like a beaut.

_Jonny German - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:27 PM EDT (#92439) #

If the Red Sox overtake the Yankees, there's a decent chance that New York misses the playoffs altogether. Which is better for non-Yankee fans in the off-season, a happy or angry Steinbrenner? I'm theorizing that the Boss is more likely to ignore Cashman and throw stupid money around if he's ticked off at missing the playoffs, so it's Go Red Sox Go! And then of course I'll cheer for their quick dismissal in the first round...

Coach - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:31 PM EDT (#92440) #

Jeter's bunt sounded like a beaut.

You don't expect the 3-hitter to bunt with nobody out.

Escobar is his own worst enemy sometimes. Like when he has to field the ball. He handcuffed Giambi into a weak dribbler, only to throw it in the dirt -- from his knees -- and miss the easy force at home. I think he was hurrying to start a 1-2-3 DP, but he had no chance.

Matsui stroked a 2-run single to left; it's 3-0 already with just one away.

Craig B - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:31 PM EDT (#92441) #

Ugh. Looks like the rout is on. Matsui singles in two after an Escobar error puts Giambi on and scores a run. 3-0 Yanks now.

Craig B - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#92442) #

Someone (not me) named CB had the right line on Primer's Game Chatter - "Somebody wake up Escobar and tell him he's pitching today."

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:37 PM EDT (#92443) #

http://economics.about.com
It's funny how the Jays can look so good against the Tigers, yet so lousy against the Yankees. On second thought, I guess it's not. :)

I have to admit I'm kind of glad the game is one-sided. Wish it was one-sided the other way, but what can you do? I really need to get work done this afternoon.

Mike

_A - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:38 PM EDT (#92444) #

I'm fond of reminding my high school players that I taught them everything they know about baseball, but not everything I know.

So yeah, about that, I was promised the Holy Grail of baseball knowledge back in grade 9. I stuck around 5 years (only got to play 4 courtesy the Progressive Conservatives) and yet I still don't have every ounce of Kent Williams Baseball Knowledge (that sounds like a video tape in the making). What gives?

...In all fairness though, I didn't learn everything I know in baseball from you. All the bad traits are from house league coaches. And even at that, I figured out how to get tossed from a game by doing some self-directed learning.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:46 PM EDT (#92445) #

http://economics.about.com
Completely OT: Does anyone know where I can get an At-Bat log for a player (any player will do). ESPN and a few other sites have game logs, but I need data on whether or not a player got a hit in each at bat. Something like:

HOOHHOOOHOHOOHOHHHOOOHOHOHHHOOOOH

Where H=hit, O=out.

I'm giving a presentation on common statistical distributions used in queuing theory and I thought I'd use baseball statistics as an example.

Cheers,

Mike

Coach - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:49 PM EDT (#92446) #

Phelps singled, Hinske walked and Hudson doubled -- suddenly it's 3-2.

Escobar needed 35 pitches in the first, when he struck out the side the hard way.

Coach - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:14 PM EDT (#92447) #

I was promised the Holy Grail of baseball knowledge back in grade 9... What gives?

Adam, you got your baseball diploma this spring, with honours. The final exam was that AB in practice when all I could do was foul off your fastball and you got me to pop a great 3-2 curve into left field.

In the Bronx, O-Dawg started what was almost a highlight-reel double play, but Williams beat it out by a whisker. Matsui then steered an opposite-field double and Boone pulled a splitter through the 5.5 hole -- 4-2 Yankees, with just one out in the third and runners at the corners.

Coach - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#92448) #

SPECTACULAR catch by Hudson after Escobar struck out Garcia, and there's no further harm done.

Orlando ranged well to his left and out into shallow right field and made a fully-extended dive to rob Flaherty of at least one RBI on what appeared to be a flared single.

_Spicol - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:00 PM EDT (#92449) #

Vernon is now hitting 317. Jeter and Mueller lead the league at 322. It wouldn't take much of a hot streak to have a batting champion in Toronto.

_Nigel - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:37 PM EDT (#92450) #

Today's first inning should go as Exhibit 1-A on why not to spend a ton of money trying to sign Escobar. All the "other" things (holding runners, fielding his position, general smarts for the game) he does terribly. Today's first inning was certainly not unique for him this season. Kelvim's great so long as every thing goes his way. Fluky hits, bunts, multiple runners on and something bad is bound to happen. I remain unsold on the idea of spending big money to get him back. It's a shame because the raw stuff may be the best ever for a Toronto starter.

Craig B - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:52 PM EDT (#92451) #

On another note, Brian Bowles is now in his third straight year of coming to the Jays and actually looking like a major league reliever, on top of looking like one each year in Syracuse. I know he has control problems, but I am starting to despair that he will ever get a shot in a Toronto uniform.

Nice to see Vinny Chulk survive his first major league inning.

Coach - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:54 PM EDT (#92452) #

Vinny Chulk gave up an infield single to his first big-league batter, Derek Jeter. Then Jason Giambi pulled one just off Delgado's glove; it was inches away from being two, but got through for another single. After falling behind Bernie Williams 3-0, Chulk battled back to get him on a "swinging bunt" he fielded himself.

The rookie got squeezed by the ump on a beautiful 2-2 back-door slider to Matsui, but Kevin Cash fooled him by calling it again; Vinny earned his first career K. Rob Faulds said, "the Incredible Chulk gets Godzilla."

He got out of the inning unscathed by getting Boone to hit a foul pop. Nice debut, facing the heart of the order in Yankee Stadium. My one inning impression -- good life on the fastball, better control of his breaking stuff. Excellent poise, after the disappointing results with the first two hitters.

Craig B - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:03 PM EDT (#92453) #

The white flag comes out as Eric, Vernon, and Carlos take seats on the bench.

Leigh - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#92454) #

I disagree... sort of. On the one hand, a plausible argument can be made that no pitcher should ever be offered "big star money". On the other, more convincing hand, whichever team comes away from this year's free agent market with Escobar will have been fortunate.

Looking at the only pitching stats that matter [that is to say: to only pitching stats over which a pitcher has any control]:

Command [K/BB]
Escobar: 2.2
Colon: 2.8
Millwood: 2.6

Dominance [(K*9)/IP]
Escobar: 7.7
Colon: 7.0
Millwood: 7.0

Homerun Rate [(HR*9)/IP]
Escobar: 0.7
Colon: 1.1
Millwood: 0.7

Escobar is clearly hanging with the big boys in terms of this year's free agent starting pitchers. While he does not have quite the command of Colon or Millwood, he strikes out more than either do [dominance]. He also gives up the same amount of homers as Millwood, and considerably fewer than Colon.

Considering that Colon and Millwood will demand really big money, Escobar easily offers the most value on the pitching market this season. I can say, with some conviction [and without reference to silly stuff like ERA and Wins], that Escobar has performed at least as well as Millwood or Colon this season. Escobar is damn good.

Craig B - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#92455) #

Accompanied by some weird tricks by Torre... Soriano's thumb injury is killing him, yet he goes up to hit in the bottom of the 8th in a 9-3 game.

_R Billie - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:06 PM EDT (#92456) #

Fluky hits, bunts, multiple runners on and something bad is bound to happen.

These things aren't good for any starter and tend to bite most pitchers in the behind. I'm not sure why a big deal is made when Escobar fails to handle those things...not everyone can be Halladay.

When you have a pitcher with filthy stuff who can stay healthy and throw 120 pitches when he has to and produce quality starts at a decent clip, you keep him if you can. I think far too much is made of Escobar's bad outings and the good ones (like 6.2 innings and 3 runs just last week against the Yankees) are quickly forgetten. Chris Carpenter really wasn't any different from Kelvim in terms of performance and yet most saw him as a necessary part of the rotation if the Jays were to stay competitive. If the Jays *didn't* have Kelvim doing what he's done as a starter this season, their record would be pretty sad indeed.

Good job by Chulk. I can see him having a real role with this team in long relief next year with a chance to do more if his command holds up.

Leigh - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:06 PM EDT (#92457) #

Sorry, took me awhile to compose that last comment. It was in response to the comment made by Nigel 6 comments up.

Say, how do you guys do that snazzy thing whereby you quote somebody in italics?

Leigh - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:07 PM EDT (#92458) #

Preach it, R Billie

_Nigel - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:24 PM EDT (#92459) #

Leigh, sorry I can't agree that ERA is "silly" (at least over an extende period of time). I can agree that W-L's is silly. When your park adjusted career ERA+ in approximately 700 innings is 103 your a slightly above average pitcher, regardless of your K and homerun rates. This was sort of my point in my earlier post. Kelvim puts up excellent peripherals (generally) but the results often do not match what those SABRE-rate stats would suggest. I think its the "other" things that he doens't do well that impact that.

_DS - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:24 PM EDT (#92460) #

Italics?

< i > quote here < / i >

Of course, take the spaces out between the brackets.

_Jacko - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:25 PM EDT (#92461) #

Say, how do you guys do that snazzy thing whereby you quote somebody in italics?

Copy and paste the bit you want to make reference to, and wrap it in html italics tags:

Quoted Text!

_Jacko - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:27 PM EDT (#92462) #

DS, good idea on the spacing for showing the italics tags.

I tried using html escape characters, and the posting software went ahead and converted them to real tags, even though they showed up as text in the preview :)

Leigh - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#92463) #

Nigel, I made an error in what I said. It is not that ERA is silly [it is, in fact, important]. My point is that the peripherals are better indicators of shifts in future ERA than is actual ERA. I am not sure that K has been a starter long enough to infer that, somehow, he is some sort of bizzare exception to the extremely high correlation between good peripherals and ERA success.

_Nigel - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:59 PM EDT (#92464) #

Leigh, fair enough and I understand the line of thinking. However, Kelvim's rate stats this year are incredibly consistant with his career lines prior to this year (and hence I do not see a lot of evidence for the improvement you forsee). His career K/9inn is 7.9; his career k/bb is almost exactly 2:1. Only his HR rate is considerably better this year. His career rate is .9. I actually think that Kelvim, given how poorly he does on the "other" things could be exactly the type of outlier from normal trends you mentioned. The issue I have is, given the fact that he has swung back and forth from differing usage roles are some of the problems related to that and can they be fixed? I do not know. My gut says that at 27 and nearly 800 innings into his career they may not be. I just think he is too high risk for a large dollar signing.

Leigh - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 06:10 PM EDT (#92465) #

Nigel, I agree. He is risky, but I think he can [should?] be a number 2 starter. I suppose it depends on what is determined to be his "fair" market value.

_Mick - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 06:12 PM EDT (#92466) #

Everything I ever learned, I learned from Kent.

Kent State University is a fine, fine school.

Mick
Bowling Green '88 & '94
Another MAC school no longer suffering Big 10 Envy

Gitz - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:00 PM EDT (#92467) #

Mick went to Bowling Green? That's all well and good, but did one of your college produce five Heisman Trophy winners? Granted, one turned into a double-murderer, but who's counting?

I'm fond of reminding my high school players that I taught them everything they know about baseball, but not everything I know.

Kent, this is great. I must remember to steal, er, "borrow," this line if I ever become a coach or teacher (using writing as the example instead of baseball), because, like any good writer (or at least every intelligent writer, whereby "intelligent" means "thiefy"), one must be adept at the art of "borrowing" and "making up words" like "thiefy" and "not using too many 'ironic'" quotation marks or too many (or few) parentheticals (if you follow).

_Nigel - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:14 PM EDT (#92468) #

Gitz, in my world what you are referring to is the intelligent use of precedents. The term "thiefy" as good as it is, is far too pejorative.

Gitz - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:26 PM EDT (#92469) #

Nigel,

Let me guess: another lawyer prowling Da Box? In the highly unlikely event I ever need an attorney (although one more letter to President Bush and I may yet be in trouble here), I certainly feel comfortable in my capacity to secure counsel.

On an unrelated note, I wonder what Shakespeare would have called his rampant "borrowing" of ideas? His poetry was magnificent, both within and without the plays, of course, and what he did with the ideas had never been done before -- and probably still hasn't -- but the hackneyed "There's nothing new under the sun" has seldom been more apt.

_Nigel - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:35 PM EDT (#92470) #

Yes, unfortunately another lawyer. On the Shakespeare note, if you ever want to read a fascinating piece on Shakespeare, Harper's Magazine about 3 years ago tackled a similar topic. They had several scholars write about whether the actor Shakespeare actually wrote what we attribute to him or whether it was someone else. One of the foremost arguments against Shakespeare writing some of the works is that some of the plays were clearly "borrowed"/stolen from authors works written in other languages that had not been translated into English at the time of Shakespeare's writing. Given that Shakespeare was relatively uneducated, the theory is that someone with a diverse languages education must have written some of the work which we attribute to Shakespeare. Of course all this has very little to do with Shakespeare's K rates and HR/innings. Of course his fastball didn't have much movement according to all sources:)

_Jordan - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:37 PM EDT (#92471) #

My favourite take on Shakespearean cliches is this one.

Leigh - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:20 PM EDT (#92472) #

I hereby apologize for my egregious use of parenthesis and quotation marks. I think it might be because I recently printed off and read most of the Rob Neyer archive on espn.com. Neyer is a flagrant abuser of ironic quotation marks.

Craig B - Monday, September 08 2003 @ 10:55 PM EDT (#92473) #

did one of your college produce five Heisman Trophy winners?

"Did one of your college"? Nice college. :)

They had several scholars write about whether the actor Shakespeare actually wrote what we attribute to him or whether it was someone else. One of the foremost arguments against Shakespeare writing some of the works is that some of the plays were clearly "borrowed"/stolen from authors works written in other languages that had not been translated into English at the time of Shakespeare's writing.

I remember this. All I could think, at the time, was the sheer blind arrogance of academics who believe that no one can learn anything outside formal edjamacayshun. The idea that someone is incapable of learn foreign languages outside a scholastic setting is contemptible. Shakespeare almost certainly knew Latin, which he could have picked up almost anywhere... and most likely at Stratford's grammar school, which he likely attended and which was one of the finest primary schools in Britain. From there, French, Italian, and Provencal are nothing, particularly if you liked to read... and Shakespeare was obviously a voracious reader. Hell, his father was a glover and whittawer, which means that Shakespeare himself almost certainly grew up with clerks, writers and printers all around (since whittawers often made parchment, among other things).

What really drives the "Shakespeare isn't Shakespeare" school of thought, in my opinion, is the idea that a poor man of moderately humble origins who actually worked for a living, could create great art and become a great man.

Gitz - Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:27 AM EDT (#92474) #

I was not implying that Shakespeare did not write his own stuff; I believe, as Craig says, that the people against him will not admit that his brilliance was realized despite the humble background. My point was that he did find his plays from many sources, including, as Nigel says, many works in many different languages. To call him a genius is spot on; to call his works original is less so.

And I believe he had a wicked split-fingered inkball, a recondite fact but nonetheless a true one.

Gitz - Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:37 AM EDT (#92475) #

Oh, and Leigh: I was not singling you out for excessive use of ironic quotes. I was merely poking fun at myself. An easy target, to be sure.

Craig B - Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 09:01 AM EDT (#92476) #

Right on, Gitz.

Gitz - Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:13 PM EDT (#92477) #

Craig,

I'm right on about me being an easy target, eh? Heh.

Game 143: Rematch | 42 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.