Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
I wasn't able to follow yesterday's game. My custom in such circumstances is to immediately send Liam a text message as soon as possible to find out what's going on. Here's the exchange:

Me: Jays update?
Liam: Don't ask.
Me: We suck.
Liam: We sure do.

Sigh. It's not just that following this team isn't exactly rewarding - this team isn't even very interesting. But I will persevere, I'll provide some shrewd and savvy insight. I'm a professional, right?

Wait a minute - I'm not? I'm doing this for nothing?

Well, then. Just shoot me, now. Make sure you get my whole head in front of the shotgun.

But until then, I do have some random thoughts and observations. And, surprisingly enough, following up on them led to the generation of Data Tables. Having done this much, I feel compelled to share. I don't want to keep all this misery and despair to myself. Mind you, I'm not feeling particularly motivated to polish this, to shape it all into some sort of coherent and persuasive argument or anything like that - the 2008 Blue Jays do not inspire that level of commitment. We'll just kind of free associate a bit...

On Saturday, the general subject of the Blue Jays luck, or lack of same, came up. The context, for me anyway, was the Jays failure this season to match their Pythagorean expectation. A team that has scored 364 runs and allowed 347 really ought to have a 47-42 record. The Jays, at 42-47, are five games below that, which is quite a bit, actually. Cleveland and Atlanta are the only teams in the majors to have missed their expected wins by more than the Blue Jays.

As I noted on Saturday, there are two things and two things only that pull a team's actual record away from its Pythagorean expectation: one-run games and blowouts. In the case of the 2008 Jays, it's the one-run games (they're 4-3 in games decided by 7 or more runs.) If they had simply split their one-run games, they'd be bang-on with what the Ancient Sage expects of them. Instead, they've gone a pretty dismal 12-21 in the close games. Yes, it's 2005 all over again.

Well, it's not quite that bad. Not yet, anyway. The Jays went a stunning 16-31 in one-run games in 2005. That's hard to accomplish.

Anyway, a lousy record in one-run games is the mark of an unlucky team. I've gone on and on about this before, but to sum it up one more time:

The biggest variable in one-run games is just dumb luck. Although reasons for the specific failures of specific teams can be identified with more precision, there is nothing - absolutely nothing - common to all teams that are lousy in one-run games.  And so it's a random thing. A team can have a lousy record in one-run games one year and be perfectly fine the next. A good record in one-run games usually isn't the mark of a quality team - it's the mark of a lucky team. Blowouts, on the other hand, are significant because the ability to beat the other team senseless is characteristic of a quality team. Its a genuine marker. You can catch a break and win a game by one run quite regularly. It happens all the time. But you don't catch a break and win by ten runs. You win by ten because you were way better than the other team that day. And you have to be pretty good, in some fundamental way, if you make a habit of that sort of thing.

(See how uninspired I am? I'm just cutting and pasting!)

So, fine. The 2008 Jays have been unlucky in the close games. If the dice had fallen normally, they'd be around 46-43 or 47-42. Nothing to write home about, but we'd be living in hope, right? And if their luck had been good and they were a few games over their Pythagorean expectation - wow, what a concept -  they could actually be something like 50-39. It's genuinely conceivable, folks.

After all - the Angels have scored only 9 more runs than the Jays this season. They've allowed 4 more. And they're sitting pretty at 53-35, a full six games better than what Pythagoras expects. The Angels are better in the close games (16-11) than they are in the blowouts (2-3).

Anyway, on this level, the Jays have been unlucky. They really have! They haven't been catching any breaks in the close games.

Okay, fine. Bauxite Olerud363 commented Saturday that the Jays have been unlucky in many ways since 2005: he mentioned Halladay's broken leg, Overbay's wrist, Hill's concussion and some other things. All of which happened, it was painful, and let's not dwell on it overmuch.

Because anyway  - I just look around the AL East this year and what do I see? The Jays have lost Marcum for the last little while? The Rays started their year without Scott Kazmir. The Yankees lost Phil Hughes, which was disappointing, and Chien-Ming Wang which could well prove catastrophic. The Red Sox have had to do without Schilling all year, and Matsuzaka was out for a while.

The Jays lost Rolen and Wells for a while, and Hill is still out. Okay, but the Yankees lost Posada and Rodriguez. Matsui is hurt. Damon is hurt. Boston lost and is still without David Freaking Ortiz.

And even Tampa hasn't been entirely Smiled Upon by the Fates. Carlos Pena has returned to planet earth and Jonny Gomes has fallen right off planet earth. Even Carl Crawford is having an off year, by his own remarkable standards. Meanwhile, Troy Percival is on the DL.  Rocco Baldelli's career remains in jeopardy, and that reminds me that it's always worth the time and trouble to hiss and hoot at Kevin Hench for his nasty hit job on Baldelli back in March "And what is he exhausted from, the off-season?") No, you vicious little slug, he has a mitochondrial disorder. (I'd include links, but for some reason whenever I try to include a link these days it ends up pointing absolutely nowhere, disappearing into some hole in cyberspace. Kind of like the Jays offense...)

Glad I got that off my chest.

Anyway, my point -  and it's possible that I do have one - while I'll submit that the Jays have genuinely been unlucky in the close games, and that Pythagoras has never enfolded them in his warm embrace - they haven't been particularly unlucky in any other way. Every team has its own tale of Woe and Misfortune, some of them even more heart-wrenching than ours...

The Blue Jays offense hasn't been giving AL pitchers a lot of sleepless nights this season, unless the post-game celebrations are going very late indeed. And by now it seems that everyone has commented on the Jays' special futility in the Big Situations. They don't hit very well with Runners in Scoring Position. And hey - maybe if they were better in those situations, they'd score more runs! Win more close games!

I suspect this to be a Grasping After Straws, but let's look into it. The first thing I want to know is how many runs have the Jays scored. Well, that's easy - they've scored 363. How many runs should they have scored, given what their offense has done? We haul out the old Runs Created formula (still my favourite, because I more or less understand it!), and discover they should have scored 385 runs. Okay, the offense is underachieving a little in two aspects - not only is everybody not hitting as well as one had a right to expect, they're not even getting as many runs out of what they have done as you would expect.

But it's not that big a deal. Most of the AL has scored slightly fewer runs than the RC formula projects. The league average is 11 runs below the RC formula. One team has scored a bunch more (Minnesota), two teams have scored a bunch less (Texas and Boston).

So here is a Data Table, in which the teams are ranked by their divergence from the RC formula. So its the columns at the far right that I would draw your attention to. "R-RC" stands for "Runs minus Runs Created" - a negative figure means a team has scored fewer runs than the formula would expect, (which is actually par for the course this season.)

TEAM         AB   R   H   TB   2B 3B  HR  BB  SO  SB CS SH SF HBP GDP BAVG  OBP  SLG  OPS   RC  RC/27  R-RC
Minnesota  3002 432 834 1222 160 24  60 255 522 53 24 27 34  16  70 .278 .334 .407 .741 410  4.77  22
LA Angels  2946 366 756 1136 138 10  74 235 553  64 23 14 21  28  73 .257 .315 .386 .701  357   4.17    9
Oakland    2963 381 741 1114 156 14  63 325 643  50 13 13 25  18  67 .250 .325 .376 .701  375   4.29    6
Cleveland  2934 384 722 1154 166 10  82 280 631  45 15 21 23  57  63 .246 .321 .393 .715  381   4.38    3
Kansas City 3023 360 794 1172 164 11  64 219 534  43 25 22 17  26  66 .263 .316 .388 .704  366   4.18   -6
Seattle    2977 353 767 1127 143  8  67 250 466  62 16 21 29  14  69 .258 .315 .379 .694  360   4.14   -7
Chicago Sox 2978 423 782 1313 159  6 120 298 524  33 17 18 19  35  83 .263 .335 .441 .776  435   5.06  -12
Baltimore   2985 401 774 1257 168 18  93 289 552  50 25 17 19  20  56 .259 .327 .421 .748  416   4.80  -15
Tampa Bay   2913 411 771 1216 137 16  92 325 619  97 32 12 32  29  60 .265 .341 .417 .758  431   5.10  -20
NY Yankees  3008 412 811 1260 172 11  85 301 490  53 21 18 21  39  80 .270 .342 .419 .761  433   5.02  -21
Toronto    2985 363 775 1138 150 15  61 326 510  55 23 25 29  34  97 .260 .336 .381 .718  385   4.41  -22
Detroit    2984 413 814 1287 157 20  92 293 533  31 14 21 23  21  75 .273 .340 .431 .771  438   5.12  -25
Texas    3111 477 869 1414 196 17 105 327 643  49 13 30 33  28  63 .279 .350 .455 .804  509   5.73  -32
Boston    3083 449 861 1380 185 14 102 337 581  76 21 16 35  40  90 .279 .354 .448 .802  496   5.65  -47
                                                                            
AVERAGE    2992 402 791 1228 161 14  83 290 557  54 20 20 26  29  72 .264 .332 .410 .742  413   4.76  -11
.
Now might a team's performance with Runners in Scoring Position have something to do with all of this? I think it could. If the Twins have been hitting exceptionally well in those situations, that would explain why they've scored so many more runs than you would expect. If the Red Sox have been extremely bad, it would account for their underperformance. Let's have a look! The very last column, labelled "RISP vs TOTAL" measures the percentage change in a team's performance with Runners in Scoring Position as opposed to overall production. The unit of production being measured is Runs Created per 27 Outs.

                                                                                                        RISP
TEAM    AB   R   H   TB  2B 3B  HR   BB SO  SB CS SH SF HBP GDP BAVG  OBP  SLG  OPS   RC RC/27 vs TOT
Minnesota    757 362 241  355  47  8  17 102 126  13 4 12 34   7  24 .318 .389 .469 .858  146  6.63   138.9%
Cleveland    731 303 190  311  45  2  24 109 168  8  2 11 23  20  20 .260 .361 .425 .787  122  5.39   123.1%
Oakland    735 299 203  291  33  2  17 115 169  6  4  6 25   6  25 .276 .368 .396 .764  114  5.15   119.9%
LA Angels    701 283 192  286  41  1  17   84 131  12  4  7 21   7  22 .274 .348 .408 .756  104  4.92   118.0%
Baltimore    694 288 195  302  39  7  18 102 136  17  7  9 19   7  24 .281 .370 .435 .805  116  5.62   117.2%
Kansas City  742 284 205  298  38  2  17   74 132  12  7 10 17  11  23 .276 .344 .402 .745  104  4.69   112.1%
Chicago Sox  704 298 197  323  42  3  26   79 139  12  2  6 19  12  31 .280 .354 .459 .813  114  5.45   107.8%
Tampa Bay    725 309 190  296  26  4  24 116 158  32  9  2 32  10  26 .262 .358 .408 .766  115  5.17   101.2%
Seattle    708 274 168  256  36  2  16 108 114  20  4 10 29   6  29 .237 .331 .362 .693  91  4.03    97.4%
Texas    821 351 225  348  42  6  23 129 169  15  2 14 33   7  22 .274 .365 .424 .789  139  5.53    96.5%
Detroit    766 304 207  311  34 11  16   91 144  3  4 14 23   8  28 .270 .345 .406 .751  109  4.65    90.7%
Boston    819 334 218  330  45  2  21 128 165  32  4 11 35   9  33 .266 .358 .403 .761  129  5.08    89.9%
NY Yankees   810 312 207  309  47  2  17 101 157  9  1  9 21  14  25 .256 .340 .381 .722  111  4.48   89.4%
Toronto    802 288 192  282  33  3  17 111 155  14  5 11 29  13  36 .239 .331 .352 .683   97  3.82   86.7%
                                                                             
AVERAGE    751 306 202  307  39 4  19 104 147  15  4  9 26  10  26 .269 .354 .409 .764  115  5.01   105.5%


Well, holy crap! No wonder the Twins have scored so many more runs.  And bearing in mind that overall performance includes performance with runners in scoring position, the actual performance swings are considerably more drastic than what we see here. The Twins, who have a middle of the pack offense overall, turn into Killers and Assassins with runners in scoring position, the most dangerous bunch of hitters in the American League. By a mile. Go figure.

The Jays combine the worst of all worlds. They are indeed the worst in the league with RISP. And no other team's performance declines as much in that situation. Yes, folks. They're bad to start with, and then they fall harder and farther than anyone else. Such a rewarding bunch to root for, no?

This certainly doesn't explain the Red Sox or the Rangers. Both teams lose a fair bit of their offensive potency with RISP - but they're still pretty damn good. You know - when you start out near the top of the mountain, you can fall for quite a while and still be pretty high up.

But it occurred to me to look at the other side of the coin. We all know how bad the Jays hitters are with RISP. How about the other teams hitters when they face the Blue Jays? Let's do the same two Data Tables, but for Opposing Hitters against the Pitching Staffs.

TEAM         AB    R   H   TB  2B 3B  HR   BB  SO  SB CS SH SF HBP GDP BAVG  OBP  SLG  OPS   RC  RC/27   R-RC
Minnesota   3080 406 872 1357 160 17  97  207 515  42 18 19 16  19  74 .280 .327 .436 .763  438   4.98   -32
Seattle    2969 412 809 1243 179 11  77  322 574  45 17 17 36  31  74 .270 .342 .411 .753  440   5.07   -28
Cleveland   2981 393 817 1275 151  8  97  254 550  37 17 18 19  27  82 .271 .332 .423 .755  420  4.86   -27
Toronto    2992 347 748 1160 151 18  75  264 649  51 19 21 23  31  58 .247 .312 .383 .695  373   4.16   -26
Baltimore   2954 410 784 1217 125  7  98  357 498  73 23 19 29  36  88 .262 .344 .406 .751  434   4.99   -24
Chicago Sox 2959 338 735 1142 147 16  76  247 633  84 18 25 15  26  77 .245 .307 .381 .689  356   4.01   -18
LA Angels   2941 351 751 1160 143 14  79  254 556  72 21 17 23  19  77 .253 .313 .390 .703  367   4.20   -16
NY Yankees  2989 390 793 1210 147 13  79  279 593  68 37 21 23  29  63 .265 .331 .400 .731  404   4.60   -14
Detroit    2952 418 798 1219 169 13  74  341 459  36 18 20 22  37  86 .268 .347 .406 .753  432   5.01   -14
Boston    3011 372 731 1138 151  5  80  333 655  64 17 27 16  31  59 .243 .322 .374 .696  384   4.22   -12
Kansas City 3010 429 815 1291 162 19  92  275 572  35 14 17 28  15  73 .267 .328 .424 .752  429   4.88     0
Oakland    2894 324 688 1039 142 10  63  280 607  42 24 15 23  29  70 .235 .306 .355 .661  323   3.68     1
Texas    3103 509 886 1377 195 16  88  360 499  63 21 19 30  35  91 .282 .359 .438 .797  507   5.70    2
Tampa Bay   2897 342 698 1094 146 17  72  273 598  41 18 16 23  18  68 .238 .305 .373 .678  339   3.86    3
                                                                           
AL AVERAGE  2981 389 780 1209 155 13  82  289 568  54 20 19 23  27  74 .259 .327 .400 .727  402   4.58   -43

What have we here? What's up with those Twins? Their pitchers ought to have allowed 438 runs this season, but they've held the opposition to just 406. They lead the AL on both sides of the ball, in scoring and more preventing more runs than the individual offensive events would lead you to expect. The Jays pitchers have done quite well here as well, and as you can see offense all around the league in 2008 has been below the RC formula.

Their amazing performance at the plate with RISP may account for their offensive production. What about on the mound. Cue the next Data Table!

                                                                                                         RISP
TEAM     AB   R   H   TB  2B 3B  HR  BB  SO  SB CS SH SF HBP GDP BAVG  OBP  SLG  OPS   RC  RC/27 vs TOT
Baltimore   727 217 188 274  21  1  21  121 117  24  4  7 29  12  43 .259 .361 .377 .738  104  4.61    92.4%
Toronto    694 170 159  236  32  3  13  102 156  10  2 12 23  12  19 .230 .329 .341 .670   86  3.87    93.0%
Seattle    797 267 207  312  41  2  20  129 167  7  5 11 36  10  29 .260 .356 .391 .747  119  4.78    94.3%
Minnesota   737 192 209  307  35  6  17   63 132  12  3  9 16   4  20 .284 .337 .417 .753  105  4.84    97.0%
Chicago Sox 729 203 180  275  39  4  16   81 161  23  1 11 15   8  28 .247 .323 .377 .700   92  4.08   101.7%
NY Yankees  756 219 203  309  39  5  19   94 161  11 13 14 23   9  23 .269 .347 .409 .756  109  4.70   102.2%
Boston    724 214 177  269  38  0  18  104 172  18  7 17 16  10  21 .244 .341 .372 .712   98  4.32   102.4%
Tampa Bay   680 202 167  242  36  6  9   91 148  18  2  5 23   4  26 .246 .328 .356 .684   85  3.99   103.4%
LA Angels   665 201 174  254  24  4  16   93 141  23  4 10 23   5  27 .262 .346 .382 .728   93  4.55   108.4%
Cleveland   678 197 187  297  38  3  22   82 147  11  4  9 19   8  21 .276 .352 .438 .790  108  5.30   108.9%
Kansas City 713 208 200  312  40  3  22   93 132  7  4  9 28   3  22 .281 .354 .438 .791  115  5.32   109.2%
Detroit    784 257 221  330  40  3  21  126 121  7  4  8 22  11  36 .282 .380 .421 .801  129  5.53   110.4%
Texas    856 287 253  415  52  7  32  150 152  18  3 13 30  16  31 .296 .398 .485 .883  177  6.99   122.6%
Oakland    643 180 169  246  37  2  12   87 139  15  1  7 23   9  29 .263 .348 .383 .730   90  4.55   123.8%
                                                                                
AL AVERAGE  727 215 192  291  37  4  18  101 146  15  4 10 23   9  27 .264 .350 .399 .749  107  4.82   98.0%

By the way, you do not want to know how much time I spent fretting about the fact that the two sets of numbers didn't balance - that what AL hitters had done did not match what AL pitchers had allowed. I worried and wondered and worried and pondered. It occurred to me that the fact that I was drawing some material from ESPN and some from baseball-reference.com might be a problem. And then I remembered...

Interleague play.

That's why AL teams have scored an average of 402 runs while AL pitchers have allowed an average of 389 runs (Runs Created figures are 413 and 402.) Because they also play against the National League.

DUH!!!!

Anyway, two things strike me here. The Twins ability to give up fewer runs than you would expect isn't because their pitchers all turn into Christy Mathewson pitching in a pinch. They do raise their performance in those situations. But the most impressive staffs in that particular regard belong to the Orioles and the Blue Jays.

Yup. All of this just so I can say this: while the Jays hitters fall down on the job with RISP, the Jays pitchers rise to the occasion big time. It's quite possible that the overall effect of the one makes up for the other....

But one other thing caught my attention. As I've moaned about before, the Jays are in hot pursuit of the all-time record for grounding into double plays. They now have 97 GIDPs in 89 games, on pace for 177. That will indeed break the record, although they have reduced the rate at which they're hitting into the damn things since the New/Old Guy took over.

But the other side of that coin is this - no team has turned fewer double plays than the Blue Jays, who have just 58. Part of this is a function of their excellent pitching staff - the fewer runners on base in the first place, the fewer double plays you will be able to turn. But it's still a bad combination, to be leading the league in hitting into double plays while turning fewer of them than anyone else.

But once again, the pitchers rise to the occasion in a jam. Only one team - the Orioles - has turned more double plays with RISP than the Blue Jays.

Well. All of this just for that? Hey, just crunching the numbers takes a lot out of a guy...
7 July 2008: Feel Lucky, Punk? | 17 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
lexomatic - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 08:20 AM EDT (#188472) #
It's scary to think about how much better the Jays pitching stats COULD be if Mcdonald & Hill were in the field every day (though Mcdonald's bat might kill me). I'm curious how many teams have finished top 3 in ERA whlie being at the bottom of DPs... I imagine the majority would have to be strikeout/flyball staffs in relatively forgiving home parks.
Anyone feel like looking into this?
Sheldon - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 08:33 AM EDT (#188474) #
Magpie this article was awesome.
Great work, it really helps give better context to the Jay's problems.
Magpie - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 08:45 AM EDT (#188475) #
Just fixed a typo - I want to encourage everyone to hiss at Kevin Hench, for his nasty hit job on Rocco Baldelli. Not Kevin Mench. Hench, not Mench.

Ah, what the hell. Hiss at both of them...

Magpie - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 08:49 AM EDT (#188477) #
Anyone feel like looking into this?

Not a whole lot!

But seriously, I wouldn't be all too surprised at all if a team was near the top in ERA while not turning very many DPs. I clearly recall Alfredo Griffin and Damaso Garcia turning an absolutely ridiculous number of DPs back around 1980-81 - and why not? There were always runners on base with no one out. If you have a real good pitching staff, the defense simply doesn't get as many opportunities to turn two.
Magpie - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 09:23 AM EDT (#188480) #
Speaking of the misery of others....

Poor Liam, my star-crossed son and heir, is also a Braves fan, of course, and Atlanta has the same 42-47 record as the Blue Jays. Despite the fact that they've scored 28 more runs than they've allowed. The Braves have scored more and given up fewer than the first place Diamondbacks, although runs scored and allowed has never had much to do with Arizona's W-L record anyway. The Braves have the second best pitching in the National League, despite losing Glavine and Smoltz and Moylan and Soriano (we assumed they would lose Hampton, right.) The offense has fallen from third best in the league last year, largely because of Demons in the Outfield (Francoeur having a mediocre year, Diaz collapsing), but the mighty infield and catching keep them in the middle of the pack anyway.

But they're 5-21 in one-run games. 5-21. Seriously - how is that even possible?  And they're the worst road team in all of baseball. Bar none.

Bobby Cox is going to kill someone.

Anyway, as you can imagine, Liam is already talking about basketball season.

Chuck - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 09:29 AM EDT (#188481) #

The biggest variable in one-run games is just dumb luck.

I don't have the wherewithall to challenge this assertion (and my instinct is to agree with it), but for the Jays' 12-21 record in one-run games to be 17-16, say, would require that their net RF/RA be +10 better than it was in 5 of those one-run losses (each one-run loss would require a +2 swing in RF/RA to become a one-run victory). Those 10 runs represent a 3% increase in RF (or a 1.5% increase in RF and 1.5% decrease in RA). To me, that seems more substantial than dumb luck. Which isn't to say that their 12-21 mark is somehow "deserved", only that those 33 games were not decided by the equivalent of a cosmic coin flip.

As I noted on Saturday, there are two things and two things only that pull a team's actual record away from its Pythagorean expectation: one-run games and blowouts. In the case of the 2008 Jays, it's the one-run games (they're 4-3 in games decided by 7 or more runs.)

Continuining with my theme of riffing without a net, let me weigh in here as well. The "not because of the blowouts" argument is propped up by their 4-3 record in 7+-run games. But that is an arbitrary cutoff. Here are their records based on gap size:
+8: 4-1
+7: 4-3
+6: 9-4
+5: 10-6

Choosing any gap size other than +7 to represent blowouts changes the arguable impact of blowouts on their Pythagorean record.

Magpie - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 09:44 AM EDT (#188483) #
Yeah, I only picked 7 because I'd already randomly selected it when I was looking at Cleveland long before that day and didn't want to go stumbling their Game Logs, (and Seattle's as well....)

Hey, what can I say! Seven runs is generally a blowout!

I may have been thinking that seven runs is kind of immune to the impact of something like a late 3 spot, which can turn a two-run game into a five-run game (as well as an eight-run game into a five-run, of course.) Probably why I didn't want to set the bar as low as five runs.

I dunno!

John Northey - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 12:07 PM EDT (#188489) #
Just for fun... the Jays record with each type of spread...
Spread Games W L Wins Per 162
1 35 14 21 65
2 13 6 7 75
3 15 10 5 108
4 9 2 7 36
5 4 2 2 81
6 6 4 2 108
7 2 0 2 0
8 2 2 0 162
9 -- -- -- --
10 -- -- -- --
11 1 1 0 162
12 1 0 1 0
13 1 1 0 162

Or if you prefer, their record when spread is x runs or more...
Spread Games W L Wins Per 162
1 89 42 47 76
2 54 28 26 84
3 41 22 19 87
4 26 12 14 75
5 17 10 7 95
6 13 8 5 100
7 7 4 3 93
8 5 4 1 130
9 3 2 1 108
10 3 2 1 108
11 3 2 1 108
12 2 1 1 81
13 1 1 0 162


Huh.  A 4 run difference is a killer, as is a 1 run or 2 run spread.  Otherwise they are darn good.  I put in the wins per 162 as that is how my mind adjusts the W-L record all the time and I think it is easier for context.
robertdudek - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 07:55 PM EDT (#188510) #
I took all AL hitters with at least 100 PA on a given team and ranked them according to BaseRuns per PA by position. (notes - position is as listed by "Hardball Times").

Here is how the Jays rank with traditional "hitting" positions bolded:

    PA BaseRuns per PA Tm pos rank number Pos
Joe S Inglett 140            22.02         0.157 TOR 3 18 2B
Rod Barajas 184            26.69         0.145 TOR 4 21 C
Scott Rolen 267            41.30         0.155 TOR 5 16 3B
David Eckstein 233            28.24         0.121 TOR 5 17 SS
Lyle Overbay 345            48.60         0.141 TOR 7 18 1B
Vernon Wells 268            36.75         0.137 TOR 8 18 CF
Matt Stairs 247            32.41         0.131 TOR 9 16 DH
Alex I Rios 381            51.19         0.134 TOR 10 19 RF
Marco Scutaro 297            33.42         0.113 TOR 11 17 SS
Gregg Zaun 192            24.83         0.129 TOR 11 21 C
Aaron W Hill 229            25.92         0.113 TOR 14 18 2B
Brad Wilkerson 151            14.65         0.097 TOR 17 19 RF
Shannon Stewart 200            20.50         0.102 TOR 20 20 LF


Stairs has performed as well as could be expected for a guy in his 40s who wasn't a superstar in his prime. Rios and Hill have been well below expectations, as has Wells, though the latter has performed in the middle of the centerfield pack. Wilkerson and Stewart before him have been sinkholes, while the catchers have been good. This is a bad near for first basemen, so Overbay is actually in the top half; he just doesn't profile as a power hitter (nothing wrong with that really). Scutaro, Eckstein and Inglett have, as a group, probably exceeded expectations - particularly Inglett, though I don't think that will last.

I'll also put up the same chart for the Orioles, a team that has done much better than I would have expected:

    PA BaseRuns per PA Tm pos rank number Pos
Brian Roberts 386            66.30         0.172 BAL 2 18 2B
Nick Markakis 386            66.54         0.172 BAL 3 19 RF
Aubrey Huff 360            58.66         0.163 BAL 4 16 DH
Luke B Scott 289            44.12         0.153 BAL 6 20 LF
Kevin Millar 353            47.73         0.135 BAL 11 18 1B
Adam L Jones 333            41.46         0.125 BAL 12 18 CF
Melvin Mora 339            38.80         0.114 BAL 13 16 3B
Ramon Hernandez 272            29.33         0.108 BAL 16 21 C
Freddie L Bynum 116              5.89         0.051 BAL 16 17 SS
Jay Payton 183            19.34         0.106 BAL 19 20 LF

Most of these guys have performed to expectations, except possibly Mora and Hernandez, who look like they are nearing the end of the line as regular big leaguers. Payton is probably getting too much playing time and shortstop has been a revolving door with Bynum the only 100+PA guy at 116 PAs.

The Orioles offense profiles in the traditional manner, with most of the quality coming from the "hitter" positions (with the notable exception of Roberts), while having huge problems at catcher and shortstop.

The Jays are doing all right up the middle, but have been suffering at the corner positions.


Gerry - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 09:26 PM EDT (#188513) #
Thanks Robert and Magpie.  Even though the team might have been unlucky I agree with Magpie that this team is not interesting and intuitively it's hard for me to say that if they had been luckier they would be a good team.  I just don't see it.  From Robert's charts the Jays with the most PA's (say >250) are 5th; 7th; 8th; 10th and 11th.  The Orioles have given a lot of at-bats to their best hitters.  The Jays top two hitters, combined, have fewer PA's than Overbay or Rios.
Mike D - Monday, July 07 2008 @ 11:51 PM EDT (#188520) #
Public service announcement -- you might want to check out the Braves/Dodgers game...
christaylor - Tuesday, July 08 2008 @ 12:00 AM EDT (#188521) #
Too late... but Kuroda?!
brent - Tuesday, July 08 2008 @ 04:17 AM EDT (#188524) #
After the market has now been set by Cleveland and Milwaukee, it is time for JP to show us what he can do. Otherwise, the pitch forks are going to be out in full force trying to get him out by offseason. BTW, I really liked how DePo opened it up to the fans on his blog about the direction of the Padres. Let the wisdom of the crowds prevail!
Thomas - Tuesday, July 08 2008 @ 07:06 PM EDT (#188564) #
In a pre-game interview on TSN Ricciardi was talking about the offensive struggles of the team and mentioned that, "not to point fingers, but Adam Lind has 3 homers and Rios has 4, and Rios has a lot more at-bats than Lind."

Very true. If only there was some way that Lind could have accumulated more at-bats with the Jays earlier in the season....... If only somebody or some group of individuals could have foreseen that Lind was likely to be productive.....

China fan - Tuesday, July 08 2008 @ 09:34 PM EDT (#188579) #
Sure, but did that same group of individuals predict that Rios would have only 4 home runs in more than half of the season?
Geoff - Tuesday, July 08 2008 @ 10:41 PM EDT (#188585) #
Blue Jays ticket department won't like you very much. They prefer articles with titles like, Rolen Never Ceases to Amaze.

Although maybe such diatribes on how unwatchable this team is will clear up the karma, wash off the luck generator and other nonsensical things. Keep the despair coming.

7 July 2008: Feel Lucky, Punk? | 17 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.