Making purely statistical decisions based on small sample sizes make for bad decisions, though.  In hindsight I wouldn't have done it, because Speier's always so effective versus lefties with that splitter, or forkball, or whatever you want to call it.  But at the time I didn't think it was a bad decision.

Calling Gibbons the goat of the game is unfair if you don't give him equal credit when he makes the right move - but if he turns to the right pitcher in that situation, you'd give credit to the pitcher, not Gibbons.  I know Gibby shouldn't be asking SS to get righthanded hitters out, but his principal job was to retire Blalock and he didn't do it.

I didn't think that the decision was SO terrible. I thought Speier was pitching well enough to leave him in, although the announce team seemed to think that Texeira was a weaker hitter from the right side.

That game made me sad, though.....

Making purely statistical decisions based on small sample sizes make for bad decisions, though. 

I don't dispute this as a general rule. But the numbers here are overwhelming, and I still haven't heard any basis for bringing in Schoeneweis, be it statistical or otherwise.

Leaving Speier in would have made sense, bringing in Ryan would have made sense, walking Teix and bringing on SS to face Blalock would have even made more sense than what Gibby did.

Calling Gibbons the goat of the game is unfair if you don't give him equal credit when he makes the right move

I don't know about "equal" credit, but I gave Gibbons all kinds of credit last year for the excellent bullpen. Like I said, I'm really starting to think it was the pitchers making him look good. And maybe he was benefitting from taking over from Carlos Tosca, whose obsessive Reliever Roulette made me want to throw things.

Yes, Mike, it might have.  It might also have avoided the five-run eighth.  At any rate, the advantage to leaving in the guy who's pitching well, is that he's pitching well.

I have to agree with Dave Till in that we are all overlooking the fact that SS didn't really pitch all that poorly.  First, JohnnyMac had that "error" that led to Matthews infield single. Then the other hits were soft singles, with Texeira's being playable if they didn't put the shift on.

While it was a sad, sad ending to a great game, SS et al really didn't pitch horribly.

I don't think it was such a bad move to bring in Schoenweis.  His record against Texeira and Blalock was excellent.  Texeira hit a 92 hopper through the infield (you can see McDonald's disgust as the ball goes by) and Blalock was jammed but he got enough of it to knock it into CF.  Texas was due to get some luck after their recent struggles,  unfortunately it all came in the 8th last night.

What Gibbons -- what all managers -- need to understand better is that pitching changes should not be made unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I can only think of three such reasons:

1. The incumbent pitcher is tired (this is not the same thing as "reaching a pitch count") --  tired pitchers not only lose their effectiveness, they run a much greater risk of injury. This will rarely apply to relievers, of course.

2. The incumbent pitcher is getting ripped by the opposing batters -- he just doesn't have it, or he's tipping his pitches, or he's lost his composure, whatever. This doesn't include giving up two infield singles and a flare down the left-field line for two runs.

3. The team would gain a clear, tremendous, tactical advantage by making a specific change -- bringing in a southpaw who just destroys lefties to face a LH batter, or a reliever who simply owns the hitter on deck, or a sinkerballer looking for the double play, etc. It has to be a situation that demands (not just suggests) going with the alternative matchup.

I suppose you could add a fourth -- the game is on the line, so the team's best reliever (the closer) should come in. But these three principles should apply to all non-closer pitching changes, and a manager should run through all of them before springing out of the dugout.

At this point I can't see any manager allowing a starting pitcher to throw 320 innings a season.

Fairly obvious conclusion. Only once since 1991 has a league leader even reached 270 IP, Randy Johnson at 271 2/3 in 1999. So just one of the last 32 league leaders has even come within 50 innings of that mark.

You get a knuckleballer on a hot streak with a pitching-poor team, maybe he gets within shouting distance, but even that seems unlikely.

If Gibbons and Ricciardi are concerned with over usage of Ryan then perhaps the answer may have been to bring him in to get the one critical out needed to finish the eigth inning. And then go to Chulk to finish up the game in the ninth.

An excellent idea -- the only problem with it is that it would never happen. Seriously: it's exactly what teams should do, but no manager would dare deprive his closer of the save. Someone at Primer said the other day -- I forget who -- that the save statistic has created more bad strategy than any other development in baseball, and I think that's exactly right.

An excellent idea

I'm afraid I don't agree.  Or at least, I don't reflexively agree.  I think it depends on which batter was up for BJ to get the "one critical out."  If the idea is to put him in to face Blalock and give Chulk a 2-1 lead into the ninth, I don't like that idea at all -- you would have to leave BJ in for the ninth.  Not to get him a save -- to win the game.

If the idea is to put him in to face Wilkerson to preserve a 3-2 deficit, then I absolutely agree.  They needed to maximize their chances of getting Wilkerson out.

Blessed with hindsight, we now know that the eighth inning was extremely high-leverage and the ninth inning was low-leverage.  But we didn't know that the ninth wouldn't be critical, especially when the Jays were still ahead.  The thing about sticking an Ace Reliever (I won't use the hopelessly bourgeois term of "closer") into a tight spot in the seventh or eighth with (a) a narrow lead and (b) plans to relieve him later in the game is that an even higher-leverage situation might arise in the ninth, one with little or no margin for error (depending on whether you're playing at home).

It's little comfort to have bucked the obviously silly save statistic when you face a high-leverage ninth-inning situation with your best reliever out of the game.  Especially considering the vast gulf in ability between Ryan and the rest of the 'pen.

Mike Wilner and Jeff Blair were on PTS a minute ago with some interesting notes:

• Blair is suspicious that a transaction of some sort could come to fruition in the next 24 hours.
• The Jays are focusing most, if not all of their attention on acquiring pitching at this point.
• They are not interested in David Dellucci or acquiring another outfielder.
• Tony LaCava thinks that more options will open up after this weekend.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1153345816560&call_pageid=968867503640&col=970081593064

I know last night was a busy one at the RC but Geoff Baker thinks Hank Blalock hit the game winning home run.  The Star folks were too busy sharpening their knives to watch the game.