So ... erm, what's up, then?
Super Bowl ... hoops ... hockey ... no so much baseball. Or is there? You tell us!
Rotoworld has a blurb up right now of JP saying that they think The Beej will be ready to go opening day, but they're willing to hold him back to make sure he's healthy. Even if he's ready to go I'd like to see him eased back in to the closer role bit-by-bit. The Mockingbird ran a great article on how Gibby is smarter than we think, and if he uses this as an opportunity to change the bullpen from being headed by a traditional closer to a all-purpose relief ace that would be fantastic.
Baseball news:
According to the clock on the Jays official site, pitchers and catchers report in 12 days, 20 minutes and 31 seconds.
According to the clock on the Jays official site, pitchers and catchers report in 12 days, 20 minutes and 31 seconds.
Baseball Prospectus mentioned that Ricciardi/the Jays is/are lookign for a marquee Canadian player which means Bay... I haven't heard that rumour yet. Anyone have more info on that...is it legit? dead? etc...
I think that rumour was directly lifted from Blair's blog.
Rotoworld can never convince me that batting Matt Stairs leadoff was the right thing to do though!
I don't understand what you are referencing, but I have no problem with giving extra at-bats to a good hitter like Matt Stairs. He's a perfectly fine leadoff man for the '08 Blue Jays; it certainly beats giving extra at-bats to our worst hitter, David Eckstein.
I don't understand what you are referencing, but I have no problem with
giving extra at-bats to a good hitter like Matt Stairs. He's a
perfectly fine leadoff man for the '08 Blue Jays; it certainly beats
giving extra at-bats to our worst hitter, David Eckstein.
First, I have no problems with the Stairs comment, my issue is more the Eckstein comment and I think you're way overestimating the impact that Eckstein will have at the top of the order.
Every analysis that I have seen (including this one as a sample, but not the only one I've seen), says that OBP is the most important factor for your leadoff hitter. Eckstein does very well at OBP relative to the rest of our team - he's pretty much a lock for .350 every year. It's not incredible, but on our line-up last year, not many people beat that. He's probably better suited to the 9 hole, but it's not nearly as bad as you imply to have him bat leadoff.
Second, all the different studies I've seen that look at the difference between using the absolute best line-up and the absolute worst line-up put the impact of the best line-up at 2 wins every 5 years to 4 wins every year (with your starting 9 playing all 162 games). Keep in mind, this is comparing the two extremes (i.e. having Thomas 9th, Rios 8th, etc. being the worst line-up).
Traditional line-ups are usually reasonably close approximations to the best line-ups and once you add in injuries, rest days, off years (i.e. you only know the ideal line-up at the end of the season) - the impact these decisions have is almost negligible.
I'm amazed at how many times statistics are used for / against certain lead-off hitters, when the real statistics (the impact on wins) show it really doesn't matter much at all.
First, I have no problems with the Stairs comment, my issue is more the Eckstein comment and I think you're way overestimating the impact that Eckstein will have at the top of the order.
Every analysis that I have seen (including this one as a sample, but not the only one I've seen), says that OBP is the most important factor for your leadoff hitter. Eckstein does very well at OBP relative to the rest of our team - he's pretty much a lock for .350 every year. It's not incredible, but on our line-up last year, not many people beat that. He's probably better suited to the 9 hole, but it's not nearly as bad as you imply to have him bat leadoff.
Second, all the different studies I've seen that look at the difference between using the absolute best line-up and the absolute worst line-up put the impact of the best line-up at 2 wins every 5 years to 4 wins every year (with your starting 9 playing all 162 games). Keep in mind, this is comparing the two extremes (i.e. having Thomas 9th, Rios 8th, etc. being the worst line-up).
Traditional line-ups are usually reasonably close approximations to the best line-ups and once you add in injuries, rest days, off years (i.e. you only know the ideal line-up at the end of the season) - the impact these decisions have is almost negligible.
I'm amazed at how many times statistics are used for / against certain lead-off hitters, when the real statistics (the impact on wins) show it really doesn't matter much at all.
I don't understand what you are referencing, but I have no problem with giving extra at-bats to a good hitter like Matt Stairs. He's a perfectly fine leadoff man for the '08 Blue Jays; it certainly beats giving extra at-bats to our worst hitter, David Eckstein.
Putting your best hitter/slugger vs. RHP in the leadoff position is criminal in terms of roster management. Extra ABs? I guess so, he can then drive in no one when John MacDonald fails to get on base for the nth time.
I'm not disturbed whether or not BJ is ready for opening day...what bothers me is that Janssen seems to hinge on Whether BJ needs another month.
IMO, tis better to leave Janssen stretched out and get through six weeks or less without BJ in the pen than it is to have to convert Janssen back to a starter after Ryan returns. Admittedly some of that is gonna depend on how effective League looks in the spring but still, i think we have the arms to set up Accardo for a month or so.
IMO, tis better to leave Janssen stretched out and get through six weeks or less without BJ in the pen than it is to have to convert Janssen back to a starter after Ryan returns. Admittedly some of that is gonna depend on how effective League looks in the spring but still, i think we have the arms to set up Accardo for a month or so.
JP's problems with Janssen are initials, namely AJ and BJ. This year if BJ is not ready Janssen may have to start in the bullpen BUT since AJ is leaving next year Janssen has to have enough time as a starter this year to see if he can be the number 4 guy next year behind Roy, McG, and Marcum.
We need the answer to this BS, ASAP.
JP's problems with Janssen are initials, namely AJ and BJ.
But ... but ... Casey Janssen is "CJ" ...
But ... but ... Casey Janssen is "CJ" ...
Anyone know what DJ has been up to the last couple years?
http://www.culttelly.co.uk/features/images/mfishman.jpg
Can he pitch? Failing that, we could at least ask his mom to sing the national anthem at the games.
Putting your best hitter/slugger vs. RHP in the leadoff position is criminal in terms of roster management.
I hadn't really looked at him as our best hitter against RHP; I expect some reasonable decline from Stairs. If he doesn't decline and does indeed prove to be the team's best slugger against RHP, then you're correct that he's not a suitable leadoff man.
What if Zaun and Eckstein, two reasonably reliable OBP hounds, hit 8-9? For practical purposes, I think the absolute 'spots' in the lineup are unimportant, but putting hitters in logical places relative to each other is very underrated. If you think Stairs is the best righty-killing power hitter on the team then all that really matters is that he hits after guys who get on base against RHPs, right? Particularly guys who will do it mostly with singles and walks, since they benefit the most from extra-base hits.
I wouldn't advocate batting the best hitter in the 1-hole if Jason Phillips and John McDonald are his personal table setters. That is obviously bad. But when you have competent (or good!) hitters who can reach base at the bottom of the order, I see no harm in putting one of your BSBs in the leadoff slot.
I wouldn't advocate batting the best hitter in the 1-hole if Jason Phillips and John McDonald are his personal table setters. That is obviously bad. But when you have competent (or good!) hitters who can reach base at the bottom of the order, I see no harm in putting one of your BSBs in the leadoff slot.
Alex Obal, you are my god!
I'm serious, Alex sees the logic in the argument that I and others have in batting your best hitter first.
Our lineup is ridiculosuly stacked. If Eckstein bats first, one of Rolen, Overbay or Wells hits 7th(8th and 9th presumably are Hill and Zaun) which is ridiculous! So it only makes sense to slide every one up a spot with Eckstein dropping to 9th. That way there are still good OBP hitters "setting the table" for the "better" hitters(I'd got with Rios, Wells, Overbay as 1-2-3, followed by Thomas, Rolen, Stairs, Hill.)
I'm serious, Alex sees the logic in the argument that I and others have in batting your best hitter first.
Our lineup is ridiculosuly stacked. If Eckstein bats first, one of Rolen, Overbay or Wells hits 7th(8th and 9th presumably are Hill and Zaun) which is ridiculous! So it only makes sense to slide every one up a spot with Eckstein dropping to 9th. That way there are still good OBP hitters "setting the table" for the "better" hitters(I'd got with Rios, Wells, Overbay as 1-2-3, followed by Thomas, Rolen, Stairs, Hill.)
Except ... John McDonald is going to start a fair amount of the time, and do you want the big guns at the top of the order when he plays? My ideal lineup would look a lot different on Mac days, and as far as I can tell, baseball players say they like consistency. (Whether or not consistency actually helps them - or does the exact opposite - who knows. But I figure it's good to keep people happy.)
My A-1 lineup, designed to front-load the OBP and minimize double plays, is Overbay, Thomas, Rios, Stairs, Rolen, Wells, Hill, Zaun, and Eckstein. Fat chance that ever happens, for a number of reasons.
I used to be on a big lineup construction high horse but I've mellowed out a bit.
My A-1 lineup, designed to front-load the OBP and minimize double plays, is Overbay, Thomas, Rios, Stairs, Rolen, Wells, Hill, Zaun, and Eckstein. Fat chance that ever happens, for a number of reasons.
I used to be on a big lineup construction high horse but I've mellowed out a bit.
Is there a forum populated by Red Sox fans where people argue that Ortiz should be batting leadoff?
I'd get a kick of reading that.
I'd get a kick of reading that.
Rios is signed: Globe Story. 1 year, 4.8 mil.
It's very interesting to me that the agreed upon figure is not even close to the halfway mark between the original figures submitted by the two sides. The Jays got Rios to agree to a number $300,000 above the Jay's original offer, but $800,000 below the Rios camp's figure.
That tells me the Jays must have had hard data that they could take to Rios's agent to say, Look, you're way off base. I wonder how that will affect long-term contract discussions going forward.
That tells me the Jays must have had hard data that they could take to Rios's agent to say, Look, you're way off base. I wonder how that will affect long-term contract discussions going forward.
Except ... John McDonald is going to start a fair amount of the time, and do you want the big guns at the top of the order when he plays? My ideal lineup would look a lot different on Mac days, and as far as I can tell, baseball players say they like consistency. (Whether or not consistency actually helps them - or does the exact opposite - who knows. But I figure it's good to keep people happy.)
Of course, but last year Gibby was doing it with McDonald/Backup Catcher. The same would be true if Barajas/McDonald are 8th/9th this year. Matt would likely have no one to drive in. 2 high OBP guys changes things quite a bit, but then again when Gibby was doing that last year, he didn't have that as an option.