Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Here's my first impressions of (most of) the 2006 Blue Jays.



Thomas Boswell, the Washington-based sportswriter, once wrote that you should never judge a ballplayer in a unit of time shorter than a month. On the other hand, the theme of Malcolm Gladwell's Blink is that first impressions are often more valuable than carefully-reasoned opinions. So there. Given this hypothesis, here is my $.02 on the Jays so far. (If I've left anybody out, it's because I couldn't think of anything interesting to say about him. Not everyone is fated to lead an exciting life.)

Lyle Overbay
His timing mechanism at the plate actually closely resembles Tony Batista's. Overbay doesn't face the pitcher like Tony B does, but he steps into his batting stance in much the same way. I can see why he is compared to Olerud - he tends to inside-out the ball, and he's not exactly obtrusive out there. Like Johnny O, he's quietly effective. I predict we won't hear much about him this season.

Aaron Hill
At this point, it's a wash. Hill isn't as stylish at second as the O-Dog was, but he's got tremendous lateral range, especially to his right, and a very strong arm. He'll get better at keystone-specific skills such as pivoting. At the plate, both Hill and Hudson are struggling, and I like Hill's chances of improving better.

Russ Adams
Despite his plate discipline, he's only drawn two walks so far. The moral: to draw a walk, you need help - the pitcher has to throw four balls outside the strike zone. Adams isn't intimidating enough at the plate for pitchers to fear challenging him. I still like him at short, but he hasn't done much so far.

Troy Glaus
Good Lord. Sometimes, athletes look like ordinary guys who happen to have extraordinary reflexes, but this guy has wandered in from another planet or something. He's about 50% larger than most humans, especially in the legs; his bat looks like a tiny sapling in his hands. This would be extraordinary enough if Glaus was slow and stodgy, but he's not: he's athletic enough to charge bunts and field them one-handed, he runs well, and he can even steal a base now and again. A question for the Arizona front office: why on earth did you trade this guy? Sure, there's the salary, yadda yadda, and health issues, yadda yadda - but this guy is worth about 2 1/2 Hudsons or 3 1/2 Batistas. You don't win by trading players like this away.

John McDonald
"In case of a fielding emergency, break glass."

Shea Hillenbrand
I fear that no one is going to listen to any of his complaints until he starts hitting more than .214. Compare Shea to Zaun, who lost almost all of his job, and has reacted by whacking the tar out of the baseball at every available opportunity. So much for the "hits well in April" theory - it's too early to give up on him yet, though.

Gregg Zaun
I feel better because this man is on the team I root for. I think I've said this before, but: if a Martian were to land on earth and demand to see what a typical Earthling baseball player looked and acted like, I'd take the alien to see Zaun. Mr. Going Going not only has the attitude (in a positive sense) and the ability of a baseball player - he is articulate and intelligent enough to keep the alien from zapping us into extinction. Good luck, Gregg: the fate of civilization is in your hands.

Bengie Molina
Well, he sure can hit a changeup when thrown by a lefthander. But he's looked bad trying to throw runners out, and wow is he slow. Before Bengie's arrival, I'd never seen anyone nearly get thrown out at second on a ball hit into the right field corner. That's not slow, that's glacial. (I can almost run that fast, and I'm nearly 46.) I still like the signing, but there's a chance that Zaun may get his job back before the season's over.

Reed Johnson
In the immortal words of the Talking Heads: "Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was." Isn't it good to know that, in the topsy-turvy world we live in, there are some things we can rely on?

Vernon Wells
I don't know whether it is because playing for Team USA got his timing going early, or whether he's been liberated by having actual power hitters in the lineup. But Wells has been hitting like a man who has been fettered and is now set free. Why do people challenge this man with their best fastballs?

Alex Rios
I still think he might be succeeding precisely because of the way he's being used: he's only facing pitchers he's more likely to hit, so he's hitting, so he builds more confidence, so he hits more, and so on and so on. I'm pleased as punch to see how he has improved - especially how he is turning on fast balls over the plate and redirecting them to points yonder - but if it's not broken, let's not try to fix it.

Eric Hinske
He's hitting .375, you know. He's not bringing a balsawood bat up there.

Frank Catalanotto
He seems like he's been having a quiet spring - but I took a look, and his on-base percentage is .552. Like, whoa. And Sparky's is .577. Like, double whoa. This platooning, it is a good strategy, no?

Jason Phillips
Someone with shades this cool deserves a major-league job.

Roy Halladay
The moral: when you invest a billion jillion dollars in the fragile arm of a pitcher, you're going to make double-dog sure that this arm is in tip-top shape at all times. Every tweak he suffers fills me with the sort of nameless dread only normally encountered when contemplating the Infinite Void.

A.J. Burnett
There's more than one way to win. Halladay is a successful pitcher because he throws a variety of guided missiles that branch off in various and sundry directions. Burnett seems to have a simpler approach: fastballs up, curveballs down. It's simpler but effective: Ron Guidry conquered the world with two pitches like this. Burnett doesn't seem to quite have complete control of his arsenal just yet, but he would have had six shutout innings in his first outing if the ump had rung Thome up like he was supposed to. (Bear down, Blue - you're missing a great game!)

Josh Towers
The problem is obvious: when you need pinpoint control to survive, you're in trouble if you don't have it. This problem will resolve itself - either he'll find his control, or he'll lose his job to Scott Downs.

Gus Chacin
Seems to have picked up right where he left off: his pitches still dive into right-handed hitters, and they still can't hit them. At least some of the time.

Ted Lilly
At this exact moment, no one on the planet Earth has any idea how Lilly will do in his next start. You don't. I don't. John Gibbons doesn't. Ted Lilly doesn't. Even the Baseball Gods themselves shake their heads when presented with the sight of the Immortal Mr. Tease on the mound. I predict, though, that it will all average out, and future generations will think of him as having had a quietly effective season as a mid-level starter - since, by then, all the Pepto-Bismol bottles will have long since been thrown out or recycled.

Scott Schoeneweis
Pop quiz: name the left-handed Blue Jays reliever, signed as a free agent, who has overwhelmed opposition batters so completely that they have yet to get even one measly hit off him. Your first guess is wrong: the correct answer is Schoeneweis. (Ryan has allowed a hit already, the bum.) He won't keep this up, of course, but what a start.

B.J. Ryan
Good Lord, Part II. This guy's breaking pitch starts at a hitter's hip bone and darts to the outside corner of the plate. No lefthander in the world can hit that. And, if that doesn't work, he seems to be able to throw some serious gas up there. At this point, I only rate Henke and Ward ahead of this guy.

Everybody Else In The Bullpen
Some days, you eat the bear. Some days, the bear eats you.
First Impressions | 28 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
js_magloire - Monday, April 17 2006 @ 09:35 PM EDT (#145324) #

Overall, I see some great things and some bad things, and I hope its the bad things that clear up so we can have a playoff-bound season. Rios: might I remind everyone that for 2-half baseball seasons, Rios had hit 1 homerun. Then in the 2nd half of last year, he ended up getting his total up to ten. By being 2nd on the team in homeruns, I see this as a difference in kind, not degree. An article I read somewhere stated how Wells at least had a couple of years to linger between the minors and majors, whereas Rios was pulled up for the starting job right away after 1 year in the minors. Now he may have finally caught up to major league pitching, because he certainly has the physical power. Gibbons himself has said Rios is a "superstar like player," so I expect to see the platoon go if Rios continues hitting like this throughout April.

Pitching: I think Downs has been almost as bad as Towers so far (8 vs. 9.24 ERA). I seriously question Tower's “contact pitching” strategy, as he’s let up 25 hits already this year, in half as many innings. One note is that the defence is not as polished as last year. But there are still men standing in the field, and Towers has only 1 unearned run. Maybe go the way of Halladay and demote him to the minors for a bit, calling up Banks or McGowan for the 5th starting job. Tallet didn't look too good either (9 ERA). Concerning AJ, I would rather have seen him walk Konerko those two times instead of trying to sneak the cheese past him. We'll see how he deals with a simlar one-two punch in Ortiz/Ramirez on Friday. Lilly clearly pitched so well because he had a 6 run 2nd inning to give him a big confidence boost, which could be his "Jekyll factor."

Mike Green - Monday, April 17 2006 @ 10:06 PM EDT (#145327) #
Joan Armatrading and the Talking Heads in the same piece?  Now that's 70's retro I can deal with.

Dave, I know Troy Glaus is an impressive physical specimen and hits balls out of sight.  The Jays undoubtedly needed a Big Scary Bat.  But, please.  He's not worth 2 and 1/2 Hudsons.  He's not worth 1 and 1/2 Hudsons. His last 3 full seasons, 2001, 2002 and 2005, have produced about the same offensive and defensive value as Hudson's last 3 seasons.  Defence in the middle of the diamond is that important. 


Joe - Monday, April 17 2006 @ 10:32 PM EDT (#145330) #
There is, in fact, a phrase that describes Benjie Molina's speed. That phrase is "proton decay."
Mike D - Monday, April 17 2006 @ 11:12 PM EDT (#145334) #

He's not worth 1 1/2 Hudsons.

Oh, but he is, Mike G.  In The Fielding Bible, John Dewan has the 2005 O-Dog at +20, which meant that he made 20 plays that the average second baseman wouldn't have made.  Dewan figures, on average, that a +20 in the middle infield will save a team 9-10 runs.  Terrific, surely, and he's by far the best defensive second baseman in the league...but don't you think Troy Glaus will account for at least 14-15 runs more than would whichever hitter would have gotten those at-bats had the deal not gone down?  Hudson's bat will probably be matched by Hill's, and Glaus's glove might require him to chip in more runs with his bat to make my point (although remember, the Jays got less than a half-season out of Koskie last year).

As great as the O-Dog is defensively, I think the metrics that put his defensive value added well above 10 runs simply overstate the case (and in some cases have been corrected to be more realistic). 

Moreover, as Dave notes in his fine article, Glaus has not been the defensive joke we were all led to expect.  (Dewan had him at -12 in 2005, for what it's worth.)   He's actually played a fine defensive third base, and has surely fielded his position better than has, say, Overbay.

Keith Talent - Monday, April 17 2006 @ 11:14 PM EDT (#145335) #
I don't think Reed Johnson is "same as it ever was". I think he's playing smarter now, and is more successful because of it. He's channeled his fire. I'm sounding like a real homer, I'll stop.

Surprised how little I miss Hudson. How much difference is there between above-average defence and Gold Glove defence, even up the middle? I'd lose 2.5 times that difference and pick up a Troy Glaus any day.

Hudson is going to be one of these Cesar Izturis that callers on sports talk shows will moan and whine about giving up, but really, they probably don't make too much difference to the win total.

Hudson is just a flashy defender, but a #8 hitter. I really like Hill's approach at the plate and I don't think we lose more than a handful of runs the entire season with him defending.

Is there a team in baseball right now that has as much depth as the Blue Jays? Maybe not starting pitching depth, but bench depth. Look at these guys on the bench on any given night: Johnson, Hinske, Zaun. That's mean.

Seriously, I think these guys can take it this year.


Dave Till - Monday, April 17 2006 @ 11:22 PM EDT (#145340) #
Mike: I freely admit to using hyperbole in my posts :-), but I wouldn't rate Glaus and Hudson even up because it's easier to find somebody as good as Hudson - defense and all - than to find somebody like Glaus. After all, Hudson doesn't hit all that well.

But I admit to not having studied the issue that closely (or any issue that closely, for that matter).

Joe: perhaps Molina is a giant proton. After all, there seem to be about as many Molinas as protons in the world. Or perhaps we can add Molina to the periodic table. Give him the symbol M (there already is a Mo), and lump him in with the inert elements.
Thomas - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 01:55 AM EDT (#145345) #

Moreover, as Dave notes in his fine article, Glaus has not been the defensive joke we were all led to expect.  (Dewan had him at -12 in 2005, for what it's worth.)   He's actually played a fine defensive third base, and has surely fielded his position better than has, say, Overbay

As someone who was admittedly skeptical of Glaus' defence before the season, I've been relatively impressed with what I've seen from him. He's not made any outstanding plays and nor has he flashed the leather like Rolen or Chavez or Crede. Still, he's looked very solid with his hands and has been particularly impressive coming in for bunts and mishits. I have to admit that if Glaus keeps this up all season long than there will be little drop between him and Koskie.

Mike Green - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 09:17 AM EDT (#145355) #

Mike D, John Dewan's fielding number is about right.  The thing is that normally one measures against a replacement player, rather than against average.  That's because average defence at second is not freely available. Measured against a replacement player, Hudson has been between 55 and 60 runs better per season, most of that on defence.  Glaus has been the same amount better in his full seasons since 2001, most of that on offence.  Green breaks into full voice: "DEEE-fence"...

I don't really want to think about the merits of the Glaus trade now.  It will mostly depend on Adams' development, particularly defensively.

Mike Green - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 09:42 AM EDT (#145357) #

Incidentally, Mike D, 20 plays is worth between 14 and 15 runs, taking into account the value of the out and the value of the baserunner. Whether Hudson has been 14-15 runs per game better than average defensively (Dewan has him at let's say 14.5 in 2005) or 18-25 runs per game better than average (BP has him at 18 in 2005) doesn't change the mathematics much.  He has been 40-50 runs better than replacement with the glove. Glaus has been, if anything, a little less than that with the bat.

It is true that Hudson's talent on balance is more likely to decay than Glaus' at a faster rate.

Mike D - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 10:44 AM EDT (#145361) #

Mike G, you may well be right about the conversion of plays to runs prevented, but you can't cite Dewan as authority.  Dewan agrees with Bill James' "a little less than 50%" estimate for middle infield runs prevented vis-a-vis extra plays made.

What do you mean by "most" with respect to defence when you tab Hudson as 60 runs better than replacement player?  If you mean more than 40, it still seems far-fetched to me.  I can't imagine even an average AA player being called up and individually responsible for an additional forty runs by the sheer gap in his fielding ability.   At least not if the gap between Hudson and the average big league player is 9-10 runs.  (Or even 14-15, but I think the 9-10 is right.)

I'm curious why replacement level is a better point of comparison here.  In analyzing trades, shouldn't you consider the upgrades and downgrades represented by available alternatives rather than measuring a player's skill set against Dave Berg?  (Again, you may be right, and I'd be curious as to why you did this.)

Frank Markotich - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 11:27 AM EDT (#145365) #

Anybody who is "replacement level" both offensively and defensively would never come close to the major leagues.

A major league bench player who is major-league replacement level offensively would likely be average or maybe above average with the glove.

 

 

 

 

Mike Green - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 11:35 AM EDT (#145366) #

Oh, I forgot that this debate about the conversion of plays made into runs.  It's covered nicely in this piece by David Gassko (relying on research by Tango).  The nub of it seems to be that John Dewan appears to have taken into account the value of the baserunner, but not the value of the lost out.

Even if you use average players as the baseline (which analytically one shouldn't because they are simply not freely available- Ryan Roberts would not field second base as well as the average big-leaguer, for instance), Glaus is still not worth 1.5 Hudsons.  I've counted Glaus best 3 seasons in the last 5 and compared them with Hudson's only 3.  Glaus' injuries have not been counted against him, while Hudson's have been.  With all of that, Glaus might come out producing/preventing 1.5 times as runs in his best 3 of 5 years compared with Hudson's last 3, provided one sees Glaus as an average defender.  Out of curiousity, how does John Dewan's Fielding Bible (or Gassko's Range figures published in the Hardball Times annual) rate Glaus' defence? 

MatO - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 11:39 AM EDT (#145368) #
Since we're on the topic of defensive metrics can someone please explain how Derek Jeter, now in his 30's, has gone from a horrible defender per BP to an above-average defender also per BP over the last 2 years.  Interestingly, the discussions on Jeter's defence in BP have completely disappeared.
Mike Green - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#145372) #

It's not only BP's defensive metrics that have been a little wonky with Jeter. UZR has been the same, as have plain zone rating. I'd have to spend a lot of time with his pbp data to figure out why.

A consensus has emerged, I think, in the analytic community that Jeter's performance over the last 5-7 years is probably best reflected by the his long-term ratings, i.e. somewhat below average.  Actually, BP's favourable rating for him in 2005 is not consistent with other measures; their negative rating for him in prior years was consistent with other measures.

Mike D - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 12:46 PM EDT (#145377) #

Troy Glaus, as I mentioned earlier, scored a -12 in 2005, which represents a decline from previous years.  Oddly, he was +2 on the road and -14 at home.   (Does this bode poorly for the O-Dog?)  Dewan notes that Glaus was once excellent defensively, but that his range decreased in 2005 and he made more throwing errors.

I still can't figure out, Mike G, why replacement level is the appropriate benchmark when breaking down this trade.  Why do we have to pretend that Aaron Hill isn't with the club when we evaluate this trade?  Assuming Hill provides better-than-replacement-level defence -- which he does -- then why is the relative availability of average second base defence relevant?  When the Phillies traded Jim Thome, should we evaluate his loss as if Eric Crozier would be his replacement, even if Ryan Howard's presence basically necessitated the deal?

 

Mike Green - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 01:31 PM EDT (#145382) #

Statistically, Russ Adams played replacement level defence at short last year, while Aaron Hill was average at least there.  That accords with my own observations.  I am hopeful that Russ is improving, in which case the deal might work out just fine.

Anyways, I don't really want to belabor that aspect of it.  There has been much criticism of Hudson here since his departure from Toronto, and honestly it has been a little much.  It is possible to sing Glaus' praises without taking away from Hudson's considerable abilities.

Mike D - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 01:41 PM EDT (#145385) #

I agree with you there, Mike G, and I understand your concern.  I don't mean to join a wrongheaded chorus.

I'll only say that there are some teams who, given their strengths, weaknesses, needs and alternatives on hand, might benefit from Orlando Hudson as much as (or perhaps even more than) they would from Troy Glaus.  I don't think the Jays are one of those teams, but reasonable people can differ.

subculture - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 02:19 PM EDT (#145387) #

Exactly... if we had been able to get a Giles or similar hitter, then giving up Hudson would not have made as much sense...  but since we couldn't, acquiring Glaus improves our total offense much more than it weakens our total defense.

I believe Hill will be a better than average 2b this year, and the gap b/w him and Hudson is much smaller than b/w Glaus and whoever would have been our #4 hitter this year.  Having Glaus in the lineup means other guys move down and improve the offense at those spots in the order...  however having Hudson only improves you at 2b.

Having said that, I wonder if the dbacks would have taken Russ Adams instead of O-dawg...  after all he's cheaper, younger, more offensive upside, a first-round pick, and they would not have had to move their other 2b to SS like they did (I believe)..  if so, Hill at SS and Hudson at 2b would be ideal in my eyes...

-- Sean

jsoh - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 03:16 PM EDT (#145392) #
Having said that, I wonder if the dbacks would have taken Russ Adams instead of O-dawg...  after all he's cheaper, younger, more offensive upside, a first-round pick

The problem with that is the existance of 2 even cheaper, even younger, even more offensively gifted players that the D-Backs have, who also happen to have been first-round picks as shortstops.

And I think you'll find that they'd tend to prefer Stephen Drew or Justin Upton over Adams :)
Craig B - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 05:57 PM EDT (#145403) #

Thomas Boswell, the Washington-based sportswriter, once wrote that you should never judge a ballplayer in a unit of time shorter than a month. On the other hand, the theme of Malcolm Gladwell's Blink is that first impressions are often more valuable than carefully-reasoned opinions.

The thing about the theme of Gladwell's book, is that as a practical guide the theme gets things backwards.  (As much of his writing in other areas shows).  The important thing isn't trusting your instincts.  We all do that all the time, too often even, and we don't hold our instincts up to scrutiny carefully enough.  The important thing to know is when you're in a field of inquiry where you should not trust your instincts, and dig deeper.

Baseball is one of those.  Boswell gets it right.

Oddly enough, Blink - a book about the remarkable native and unconscious reasoning powers of the human brain - was written by an author who has done a great deal of work attacking those things that we "just know".

Craig B - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 06:05 PM EDT (#145404) #

Now that I've basically qualified everything I have to say as worthless, my blink-like impressions of the 2006 edition:

This team is too slow.

Vernon is jumping all over pitches.

Every pitcher's getting squeezed.  I haven't seen enough other baseball to judge if it's all around the league.

Molina is reminding me more and more of Ernie Lombardi.  He better improve at catching the ball, too.  But EL is in the Hall of Fame for his hitting.

The increased competition for playing time has made almost everyone sharper, and that's why they should have brought in a good infield reserve.  Hill and Adams look sloppy, especially Hill at the plate.

As Bat-girl would say, BJ Ryan is my 2006 Blue Jays Boyfriend.  I heart him.

Don't be laying any money on any Ted Lilly starts.  Obviously.

If Doc doesn't pitch at his top effectiveness, this team isn't winning any pennants, but if he does, they just might.  Someone else said they believe in themselves... they did that last year, the thing this year is that they believe in each other too.  A nice change, since it hasn't happened in these parts in a while.

 

Craig B - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 06:11 PM EDT (#145405) #
There is, in fact, a phrase that describes Benjie Molina's speed. That phrase is "proton decay."

Heh, thanks for the laugh Joe.  But we have empirical evidence for Bengie Molina's having moved; we have none for the existence of proton decay (just a lower bound).  At a more prosaic level, "geologic speed" works for me.

Dave Till - Tuesday, April 18 2006 @ 07:49 PM EDT (#145410) #
Good point re Blink, Craig: I've read the book, and your summary is more accurate than mine was.

As for Molina and geologic speed: are you implying that Molina, all by himself, is a tectonic plate? Perhaps, millions of years ago, all the Molinas were joined together into a single super-Molina, which has gradually drifted apart as eons have passed.

First Impressions | 28 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.