Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The Orioles bulpen, the gift that keeps on giving.

The good guys waited out a good start by Erik Bedard and then got to work on the O's failing 'pen. The Jays relievers had their own troubles in the ninth, which gave B.J. Ryan a chance to come in and get the one-out save in his old ballpark. Ted Lilly had one of his better games after a shaky start and worked into the eighth, giving up just two earned runs.

Star of The Game: Two homeruns, two doubles four runs and four RBI. Troy Glaus is quite good at this hitting thing, I think he may have a future in the game.

Unsung Hero: John McDonald was again quietly impressive in the field and at the plate, but it's Shea Hillenbrand again, continuing his hot streak going 3 for 4 and picking up a walk.

For the Orioles: Ramon Hernandez had another good game. Nice pickup by the O's (words that are not spoken often).

Defensive Play of the Game: Before the year there was a lot of talk about how bad the Jays infield defensive would be, with Glaus arriving and Hill taking over the O-Dog. So today this goes jointly to Glaus and Hill, Glaus for a lovely charge, bare-handed pick up and strong throw to nail Markakis in the sixth, Hill for a nice ranging catch behind second on a looping Tejada liner in the eigth.

Defensive MisPlay of the Game: I didn't really spot anything terribly bad, anyone got any candidates? Glaus had an error on a throw, but I missed it.

Poor old Sam: As if only having half a bullpen who can be relied on to throw the ball in the general direction of the plate isn't bad enough, Perlozzo's bench last night consisted of Raul Chavez and Luis Terrero.

Boxscore: here

Today's Game: Casey Janssen has a chance for revenge as he goes against Kris Benson again.

Elsewhere: The Red Sox re-acquired Doug Mirabelli to be Wakefield's catcher yesterday. Josh Bard had let ten passed balls get by in the first month and was shipped to the Padres along with minor league pitcher Cla Meredith and a suitcase full of cash. There were lots of fun and games at Fenway as Mirabelli arrived from the airport in his uniform about 15 minutes before game time (much to the relief of Jason Varitek). Some Red Sox fans seem less than impressed by the trade, but every team needs a stud catcher who can go deep.

If you haven't seen this video re-creation of the 10th inning of game six of the 1986 World Servies, then you should. It will move Moffatt to tears.

TDIB: Tuesday | 48 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Craig B - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 09:11 AM EDT (#146165) #

Meanwhile, over in the Sun, Buck Martinez, Master of Hindsight, regales us with his stale wisdom.  "I always knew that Cesar Izturis/Cris Carpenter/Eric Hinske would turn out like that!"  If your 2003 fantasy draft is coming up, make sure to find out from Buck who are the best players to draft.

Buck also called his disastrous, inept failure at managing Team USA at the World Baseball Classic "the best experience I ever had in a baseball uniform,"  which is too funny for words.  Really, Buck?  Was it even better than Jim Sundberg's triple that stabbed you in the heart in '85?  Twit.


Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 09:30 AM EDT (#146166) #
If you haven't seen this video re-creation of the 10th inning of game six of the 1986 World Servies, then you should. It will move Moffatt to tears.

Heh.  Over the last couple weeks, I've sent that link to just about everyone I know.  It's possibly the greatest thing ever.

The only thing that could possibly top that is replaying the last 5 minutes of Game 7 of the 1986 series between Edmonton and Calgary, done entirely in Blades of Steel.
Mike Green - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 09:31 AM EDT (#146167) #
Over in THT, there is an interesting discussion of the progress of minor league pitching prospects. The issue of whether the ability to prevent runners from scoring is a repeatable skill that we have in relation to Gustavo Chacin repeats itself for Jeremy Sowers.  Mama, may your children grow up to be left-handed...
Tom Servo - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 10:30 AM EDT (#146169) #
Wow. I used to love Buck Martinez. Then Craig pointed out that Sun article, and I instantly lost every remaining bit of respect I had for the man.

When he said that the Jays would be on the right track with GORD FREAKING ASH as GM, I almost choked on my drink. Sure, JP let two guys go who were doing a whole bunch of nothing for the Jays. Maybe Buck forgets the awesome Wells/Sirotka trade, much like he forgets that he was fired for being truly inept as a major-league manager, or that he took a baseball team loaded with superstars and still was able to find a way to lose.

I will quote Craig here, for he speaks truth.


Gwyn - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 11:00 AM EDT (#146173) #
Mike Barnett has replaced Andre David as the Kansas City hitting coach
Geoff - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 11:03 AM EDT (#146174) #
Here's the article: Buck blasts Ricciardi

These are some fightin' words:
 "J.P. said (Carpenter) didn't have the heart to be anything more than a .500 pitcher," Martinez said. "He said we can get Cezar Izturis any day of the week."
Chuck - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 11:35 AM EDT (#146176) #
For reasons I could never understand, Buck Martinez always seemed to be revered in these circles as a colour man. I, personally, never saw what he brought to the game beyond the usual barrage of ex-jock cliches, and found him as irritating as I now find Pat Tabler. So I guess I'm far less surprised or disappointed by anything he might have to say now.  No blooms leaving any lilies as far as I can see.

On a totally unrelated note, I want to comment on Schoeneweis. Some uncharacteristic success vs RHB early on, and some mediocre work by the heavily counted upon middle men Frasor and Chulk, have resulted in SS Loogy getting a more prominent role in the pen. I would hope that last night's 9th inning will serve the remind Gibbons of Schoeneweis's limitations. Certainly, the team had a huge lead so hoping to milk a full inning out of him wasn't a ridiculous request. But that said,  I think it's time to ratchet down his role to LOOGY once again.

And last night's decision to bring in Tallet to face Tejada, was that merely to generate a save situation for Ryan?

To Pepper's comment that Glaus seems to be good at hitting, there is one area of the game that he's not particularly good at: hitting singles. But of course, he does make up for that with extra-base hits ; ). Of his 26 hits this year, 17 have been for extra bases.
Maldoff - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 11:54 AM EDT (#146178) #
Line of the night, by one Jamie Campbell:

"He's not Troy Glaus anymore, he's TROY GLAUS-OME!!!" (just after his second homer).

Too good not to repeat.
HippyGilmore - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 12:59 PM EDT (#146184) #

Line of the night, by one Jamie Campbell:

"He's not Troy Glaus anymore, he's TROY GLAUS-OME!!!" (just after his second homer).

Too good not to repeat.

My jaw literally hit the floor after that one; I wondered for a good 10 minutes if he really said that. He also used a funny, like western accent at some other point in the game. Really reminded me of some Chuck Swirsky-isms like OH MY BOSH! And even though the consensus on Batter's Box seems to be that the Swirsk sucks, I think it's amazing the enthusiasm he brings to the Raps. I think Jamie's just strange enough that he has the potential to be the most off the wall broadcaster in baseball.

Named For Hank - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#146185) #
I did a double-take after Glaus-ome, too.

I like Swirsky on the Raptors broadcasts, but I cannot stand him as a radio host.  I wasn't a big fan of Rob Faulds as a play-by-play baseball guy, but I find I really enjoy him when he fills in on Prime Time on the FAN.

Different people are good at different things -- the fact that Faulds and Rod Black can competently do play-by-play for multiple sports is actually pretty amazing.

Chuck - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#146186) #
the fact that Faulds and Rod Black can competently do play-by-play for multiple sports is actually pretty amazing

You're not counting baseball, right?
CaramonLS - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 01:27 PM EDT (#146188) #
I agree with you NFH Swirsky/Rautens are great on the Raps broadcast (I can't speak for the Radio hosting since we don't get it out here in Calgary).

Jamie needs to keep going with the off the wall comments, obviously there are some winners (I liked the Glaus-osome), but there are going to be some questionable ones (ding dong avon calling).  But keep it up gv27.

Named For Hank - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 01:31 PM EDT (#146189) #
Note that I said "competently" and not "really well" -- I don't think either of them are particularly exciting play-by-play guys, but they don't go out there and embarrass themselves.  Compare Mean Gene Okrent's half inning of wretched play-by-play last year when he was invited into the booth -- guy has a great voice, and had no idea at all of what was happening in the game, knew no-one's names and couldn't recognize the plays.

As much as we like to throw stones at Black and Faulds, they know who's on the field, they know what's happening and they understand enough about baseball to competently describe what's going on as it happens.  They are sports announcer utilitymen -- throw 'em in there and they won't be terrible.  Not neccessarily great, either, but they can do the job.  Every sports network needs one of those guys.

Chuck - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 02:51 PM EDT (#146192) #
Aaron,  you're a far more charitable sort than I, that's for sure.

Rob Faulds has proven himself to be a surprisingly articulate and halfway knowledgeable sports generalist both on the FAN and on TVO (where he debuted as a guest earlier this week). And he certainly has a polished radio voice.

But the bar should be set much, much higher for as desirable a post as being the Blue Jays play-by-play announcer. There are any number of baseball fans across the country immensely more knowledgeable about baseball than Rob "inside for a strike" Faulds. And one has to believe that some small percentage of those are in broadcasting.

SportsNet took their sweet time in removing him from the position, but even they finally conceded, if only implicitly, that a utilityman was not appropriate. I blame SportsNet more for the Faulds fiasco than Faulds himself. By foisting a baseball newbie onto the viewing public, they were treating their customers with the same disdain as Rogers Cable treats theirs, presumably operating from the same customer service handbook.

If anyone saw Faulds' performance as competent, well, that's their opinion. But I certainly did not.
Leigh - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 03:40 PM EDT (#146196) #

I have been lurking the BTF discussion of the Slam article that Craig linked above.  There are some serious fallacies being thrown around there, primarily the notion that the Hinske signing was a mistake.

Here - for dramatic effect - is a list of the AL third basemen who out-VORPed Hinske in 2002:

... [nil]

Hinske finished 35th in the majors in VORP that season, higher than Eric Chavez (38), Troy Glaus (60) and Scott Rolen (79), to name a few famous third basemen.  He hit .373/.486 in for the Cubs in AA in 2000 and .365/.521 for the A's in AAA in 2001.  In 2002, he hit .365/.481 in Toronto. 

PECOTA had him projected at .362/.497 for 2003.

It was a great deal when it was signed, and the quality of the decision to sign is entirely unaffected by the eventual results.  The hindsight horseshit that is going on at BTF in infuriating.

Here is what Joe Sheehan - who nobody will accuse of JP apologism -  wrote on March 19, 2003:

"In both cases, though, I think the Blue Jays have done well to commit to these players. There are reasons to do so that go beyond the specific merit. The Jays can now sell Wells and Hinske to their fans as the cornerstones of what should be an exciting team, a contender. They get cost certainty, as well as roster certainty, with two of their best players through 2007, enabling them to budget around the pair. If the two develop as hoped, they'll provide the kind of low-cost core that enables J.P. Ricciardi to sign the right free agents in 2004 and beyond, when the Jays should be overtaking the Red Sox and Yankees for AL East superiority.

Overall, the signings are a calculated risk with minimal downside and significant upside."

Scathing indeed.

It is okay to be critical of a GMs moves, but the critics should have the same temporal constraints as JP: judge the quality of the decision before the results come in, not after (or, alternatively, do it afterward but without regard to the results).

King Ryan - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 04:09 PM EDT (#146202) #
Leigh, while I mostly agree with you, I somewhat disagree with the notion that the results should be completely ignored.  You will notice that we only ignore the results when they are bad.  If Hinske had gone .450/.700 the following year we would all be praising JP ... based on the results, no?

In any case, I do think it's fair to use some hindsight with GM's.  I don't think it's particularly relevant to consider what we, as fans, thought of a particular deal at the time it was made.  Don't you think that there's a reason why we are just fans and he's getting paid the big bucks? It's because he's supposed to be smarter than us, and is supposed to have a bit more foresight than we do.

If he doesn't, then shit, why don't we just go apply for the job?

Chuck - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 04:38 PM EDT (#146205) #
I don't think it's particularly relevant to consider what we, as fans, thought of a particular deal at the time it was made.

I think it's entirely relevant.

If no one complained when Carpenter was let go, do fans have the right to complain now, given the incredible transformation he has made?

On the one hand, it could be argued that we, as dumb fans, should not be held to the same level of scrutiny as GM's, that they are being paid for the ability to forecast and we should be allowed to criticize their decisions with the benefit of hindisght. Thus, even if we didn't disagree with the Carpenter decision at the time, we, as fans, should be allowed to criticize it now because of the way it turned out. It's Ricciardi's job to be correct, not ours.

But if we assume the "dumb fan" posture, and are allowed to use hindsight as a weapon, then no one should give credence to any of our opinions. We're just dumb fans, after all, basically talking out of our ass.

I would think that any fan who wants to be taken seriously must have his opinions held to the same level of scrutiny as a GM's decision. I agreed with both the decision to let Carpenter go and to sign Hinske to a relatively cheap deal which would cover his peak years. While I have been as frustrated with Hinske as anyone else, and have suggested releasing him and eating his contract, I do not now feel that I have a right to criticize his signing since I didn't hold that position at the time.

And I'm not a JP apologist. I disagreed with dumping Felipe Lopez due to character issues. I disagreed with the Catalanotto extension. I disagreed with the Koskie signing. I'm not crazy about the Burnett signing, though I'd rather see Ted Rogers money spent for my potential enjoyment than tucked away for his children's inheritance. And I was lukewarm on the Glaus trade.  And if I turn out to have been wrong on any of these opinions (even if I'm the only one who remembers my opinions) then I don't have the right to criticize Ricciardi if  he turns out to have been wrong, too.
Leigh - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 05:19 PM EDT (#146209) #
King Ryan, insightful comments.  It is a semantic debate, I suppose - I was thinking about judging risk.  Signing Hinske was a either a good risk or a bad risk regardless of how well he has played.

Buying a lottery ticket, for example, is a poor risk.  Winning the lottery does not render the original decision to buy that winning ticket a good risk.  It was still a terrible idea that worked out well, like trading Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik.

I am not certain that we disagree here, as I doubt that you would disagree with my notion of risk assessment.  At the same time, I would not disagree with looking at results to see if the results themselves were good - given a large enough sample, results can tell us something about process.

King Ryan - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 05:50 PM EDT (#146212) #
But Leigh, if Ricciardi wins the lottery, then of course we'll say it's a good move.

Play along with me here.

Let's suppose that JP Ricciardi does something absolutely absurd this year.  Let's say that he names Leance Soto a starter for the Blue Jays.  Soto, you'll recall, is the man who OPSed .497 in 153 Rookie league AB's last year with 69 K's and only 12 walks. 

I think that you'll agree that this is a poor risk, and akin to me buying a lottery ticket.  But let's say something absolutely miraculous happens.  Soto hits .350 with 50 homers and wins AL MVP in 2006.  I would say the odds of this happening are roughly the same as the odds of me winning the lottery.

So if this happens, are you honestly going to stand by and say that promoting Soto to MLB was still a poor decision? I doubt it.  Clearly JP knew something that we didn't, yes? Clearly JP is just smarter than all of us.  So in this instance, hindsight is usually warrented.  We thought the move was dumb, but it turns out JP was right. 

I suppose what it comes down to is not what the fans thought of a particular deal, but whether or not a result could have been reasonably predicted based upon all of the tools Mr. Riccardi had at his disposal.  Now, we don't know all of the tools he has, so sometimes we have to simply look at the results.  As you said, sometimes the results reveal part of the process.

In the case of Hinske a few things come to mind:

1) What were the MLE's of Hinske's AA/AAA years?
2) Was Hinske not relatively old for AA/AAA? How do his stats look once you've adjusted for that?
3) Scouting reports.  What did the scouts say about Hinske? Isn't he kind of, ahem, portly?

These are three things that come to my mind immediately.  Admittedly, I did not research these things in 2002 because as a fan, it is not my job to research these things.  It is Ricciardi's.

R Romero Vaughan - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 06:05 PM EDT (#146213) #

I must say I find the debate revolving around judging decisions based on rationale at the time rather than results or outcome fascinating.

On the one hand I can see the argument for evaluating trades and FA moves based on a view at the time of the transaction

However, the fact remains that in no other business would a CEO (and that is what JP is) be judged based on the rationale behind a trade rather than the results of one.

The CEO of Time Warner's rationale for linking up with AOL was fundamentally sound at the time of the deal- the linking of internet content and service provider seemed a match made in heaven. The future. People were lining up to herald a new dawn in which these companies would dominate through all media portals.

In the end, the move destroyed share holder value and AOL was separated from the rest of the business-  with the CEO carrying the can, despite the much touted sound logic behind the deal.

Ultimately the players are evaluated on results- surely trades should not be SO different.

The point raised about positive results following 'negative reaction' trades is also valid- Does the GM not get the credit for seeing ssomething we didn't?

Remember- our evaluation of trades and FA signings is based on ALOT less information than JP has (including health/personal/contract clauses etc...).To me the results have to play a role in evaluation- we don't have enoough information re. who else is available, health...... to make a definitive judgement 'at the time'






Chuck - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 06:29 PM EDT (#146214) #
However, the fact remains that in no other business would a CEO (and that is what JP is) be judged based on the rationale behind a trade rather than the results of one.

While your point is well taken, the "judgement" of a CEO's performance -- his compensation -- may not be an appropriate analogy.  Unless of course you're thinking of Chuck Lamar, who lived a CEO-like teflon-coated existence for a good long time.
Leigh - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 06:32 PM EDT (#146215) #
So if this happens, are you honestly going to stand by and say that promoting Soto to MLB was still a poor decision? I doubt it.

Probably not.  But there is no necessary connection between my assessment of the decision and the actual quality of the decision itself.  Whether or not it was a good risk is a matter of fact, and the degree to which any evaluator (or "decider", in the case of the former Rangers owner) can ascertain that fact is dependant on the quality and quantity of evidence that she can gather.  As you rightly point out, General Managers are privy to all sorts of information that fans and writers are not.
Jim - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 07:51 PM EDT (#146218) #

Whether or not it was a good risk is a matter of fact

Actually it's not.  It's a matter of opinion. 

I said it in the other thread and I will say it again.  J.P. Riccardi is paid to tell the future.  I am an underwriting manager.  My entire life revolves around making decisions about risk based on incomplete data. 

I have similar tools to Riccardi:

  • Some statistical information - which at times can be difficult to translate
  • Opinions from those who work under me and alongside me
  • Experience from which to draw parallels from similar situations from the past

We also have a process that we have developed over time that I trust.  While I certainly agree that the process is key, ignoring the results is just going to cause you to continue to commit the same 'mistakes' (using my definition of the word).  I have always preached to those above me and below me that we must reward the process and not just the results because we look at sample sizes (say a fiscal year) and we work in a market segment where there is inherent short term variation. 

I'm not looking to get into a discussion specifically about Hinske, but using that as an example:  The fact that PECOTA liked him doesn't mean that Riccardi didn't make a mistake.  I have many computer models that I can use that will spit out what I should do.  What my company pays me for, and what Rodgers pays Riccardi for is for our expertise above and beyond what a computer model can tell you.  If PECOTA could identify players better then the average major league GM, then owners could save the hundreds of thousands of dollars they spend a year and replace them with a $4.99 a month subscription to Baseball Prospectus. 

Riccardi is paid to get better results then PECOTA, or knowledgeable fans on the internet or Jeff Blair.  He's supposed to be able to take the information that is available to him and make decisions that result in positive outcomes.  If too many of his decisions don't have positive outcomes then it isn't time to excuse them by saying the process is sound - it's time to reinvent the process.  

Certainly it's a difficult process to judge everything a general manager does because it's impossible to be correct the vast majority of the time.  Winning in baseball is turning 2 dimes in a quarter over and over until you've got a few more dollars then your competition.  Decisions need to be made quickly and the results that could change the process take years to manifest themselves.  I still hold that is not a reason to ignore the results.

Willy - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 08:06 PM EDT (#146219) #
To some extent, Jim's recent post has said what I'd like to reiterate here.   A lot of posters to this site sound rather like frustrated mathematicians, seeking to devise a formula that can be used to ascertain with certainty whether a particular decision was or was not 'correct' or 'right' or 'good'.   Just as much ot the trade talk  and other speculation and conjecture on Da Box is utterly pointless, so any attempts to find such certainty are doomed.  It's a game--one played by human beings.  There simply can be no certainty in assessing it, nor in forecasting it--as has been demonstrated here many times.

As for announcers, Sawkiw is making  St. Jerry seem ...well, almost very good.  Warren doesn't quite match Swirsky in sheer stupidity; but still, he should be sent somewhere.  The minors, MTV, the salt mines?  Even Salt Lake City.

Leigh - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 08:19 PM EDT (#146220) #
I was going to have a snack, but there is no more room in my mouth, what with all the words that Jim put in there.

I never said that a PECOTA projection meant that it was a good risk.  It is one tiny bit of evidence.

Of course subjective things like opinions and gut feelings have a role in risk assessment - I never said that they didn't.  But all of that evidence - subjective or not - is intended to lead us toward the answer.  The objective answer.  Whether something is a good risk or not is, necessarily, a matter of fact.  It is a matter of fact about which reasonable people can differ, because nobody is perfect.  But when two people do disagree about the efficacy of a particular risk, then one of those people is wrong.

I am certain, Jim, that what makes you very good at your job is that your risk assessment insights - subjective or otherwise - are closer to the objective truth than those of most people in your field.
Leigh - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 08:42 PM EDT (#146221) #
I agree, Willy, that attempting to perfectly ascertain the true quality of a risk is futile in many instances, especially in baseball.  But that does not mean that the efficacy of a given risk is not a matter of fact.
Leigh - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 09:29 PM EDT (#146224) #
Just to completely changed the topic before it gets too existential...

Has anybody else noticed that this has been a bad season for control pitchers?  Last year, there were five qualifying pitchers that met the following criteria:  fewer than 5 k/9 and greater than 3 k/bb or fewer than 6 k/9 and greater than 5 k/bb.  Those five pitchers are Paul Byrd, Josh Towers, Brad Radke, Carlos Silva and David Wells.

In 2005, those pitchers combined for a 58-50 record with a 3.87 ERA.  This season, those same five pitchers are 6-15, 9.38 (in 108.3 IP).  Byrd has been the best of the bunch at 7.70.  Towers, Radke and Silva are 9.95, 8.90 and 9.97, respectively.  Wells has allowed 7 runs in 4 innings.

Is this a coincidence?  Sample size monster?  Any theories?

Cristian - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 09:54 PM EDT (#146225) #
Greg Maddux?
Leigh - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 09:59 PM EDT (#146226) #
Maddux had a 5.4 k/9 with 3.8 k/bb in 2005, so my quick 'n' dirty extreme control pitcher net did not catch him
Craig B - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 10:13 PM EDT (#146227) #
If too many of his decisions don't have positive outcomes then it isn't time to excuse them by saying the process is sound - it's time to reinvent the process.

I hate to criticize a man for his choice of words, but Jim as I am sure you know the number of decisions with "positive outcomes" is a horrible way to judge the relative success of a process. In baseball as in many other things one or two big high-net payoffs can overwhelm the effect of many dozens of low-cost chances lost. I can lose twenty trades and win five, and still come out way, way ahead, especially if I am leveraging risk in those deals. In baseball there's often more opportunity for this kind of risk arbitrage because the assets that bring the highest potential payoffs are also the assets with the lowest associated costs. The best example of this phenomenon is the draft, where if someone is wrong 80% of the time, he'll be extremely, wildly successful.
Gerry - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 10:23 PM EDT (#146229) #
I was listening to the bottom of the eighth tonight and Jerry Howarth was giving a rundown of the minor league teams from last night, talking about Jason Frasor and Brandon League, when he delivered this beauty.  "In AA last night Ricky Romero, the Jays number one pick from last season, pitched a one-hitter against the Orioles AA team."   Bauxites know it was Davis Romero, not Ricky, who was the pitcher.  I listened to the ninth to see if he corrected himself but no.
js_magloire - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 10:44 PM EDT (#146230) #
A few weeks ago the Jays complained about the umps forcing them to play through the fifth so they could call it a game for the Chicago White Sox. Well, today in the game with Chicago and the Indians, it was raining in the fifth with 1 out and Ronnie Belliard took a full swing and let go of the bat and it hit the catcher square in the head, giving him concussion like symptoms. It's just a perfect example of why they should not have forced the game.
Jim - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 10:56 PM EDT (#146231) #

Whether something is a good risk or not is, necessarily, a matter of fact.

I guess in a vaccum maybe it's a matter of fact.  In the context of most of the disagreements between the very reasonable people who post on this site, it's nearly impossible to discern who is right and who is wrong.  If there was there wouldn't be much discussion. 

I don't really think we are really that much in disagreement.  I certainly believe that the process is key in any situation.  I just think that because you need to be able to test the system, the results do matter.  An example:  The way that the Blue Jays approach the draft.  I am certain that Riccardi and the Jays' braintrust believes in the process they are using.  I know that there are some very bright people on this site who can write very well who can make excellent arguments in support of the way that they approach the draft.  However, I think it might be time to take a look at the state of the system and say... maybe this approach isn't working and it's time to find a new strategy.  Now, I know that I can't prove that the approach is wrong - there are some prospects, some more might develop and it could be anything from the quality of the minor league coaching to bad luck with injuries that is holding some potentially good players back.  Also, it's a small sample size in the larger picture, it could be the perfect strategy, but still have poor results over 3 or 4 drafts.  You'll never get a truly reliable sample size and there are many outside factors in play that can't be isolated, so you've got no choice but to look at the results and make your adjustments.

I was going to have a snack, but there is no more room in my mouth,

I know I quoted a small piece of your post, I apologize if it seemed like I was responding to just your comments.  I was really just speaking in generalities and didn't mean to make it seem differently.  I knew you weren't trying to say that PECOTA said one thing or another about the signing, I was in a rush and didn't do a good job of explaining myself in that section.


Jim - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 11:02 PM EDT (#146232) #

but Jim as I am sure you know the number of decisions with "positive outcomes" is a horrible way to judge the relative success of a process.

I was talking about the net worth really.  I don't disagree with what you are saying in theory.  In reality there is a different process as it relates to signing a Ryan or Burnett, versus signing Jason Phillips.

I was talking about a long term approach.  For example, I think it's safe to say that Billy Beane has a better draft 'process' then Allard Baird does.  Now this might still be wrong, because I'm basing it on the results the two men have had, but it would be hard to argue otherwise and still seem sane.

Cristian - Tuesday, May 02 2006 @ 11:48 PM EDT (#146234) #
You assume that the bat wouldn't have slipped if it wasn't raining or if the rain wasn't so severe.  You may be right, but you are assuming.  Without more facts, it's not 'a perfect example' of anything.
Jim - Wednesday, May 03 2006 @ 07:47 AM EDT (#146238) #
Baseball America has sent out it's daily prospect report and made the same mistake..  It called a D. Romero start at New Hampshire, Ricky's AA debut.
TDIB: Tuesday | 48 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.