Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

The series finale turned out to be a good one for the Blue Jays as they completed a three game sweep with a 5-2 victory over Texas last Sunday afternoon at the Rogers Centre.



Josh Hamilton strikes out on a 86 MPH breaking ball from Brandon Morrow to end the third inning.  Hamilton struck out three times in an 0-for-4 afternoon at the plate.  Jays catcher John Buck makes a run for the dugout.

Aaron Hill led off the fourth with a walk and later stole second.  He slides home safely on a single by Alex Gonzalez that tied the game at 1-1.  Rangers catcher Matt Treanor awaits a throw to the plate.

Jose Bautista extends the fourth inning rally by drawing a two-out walk against Colby Lewis on a 3-2 pitch to join Lyle Overbay on the basepaths.  Overbay was hit by a pitch.

Alex Gonzalez points down to home plate to help Jose Bautista score on what appeared to be a grand slam off the bat of John BuckLyle Overbay also scored on the play to put the Jays ahead 4-1.

John Buck gives the home run signal standing at second base.  The play was reviewed but the ball wound up hitting the yellow Nikon sign next to the 400 sign in center field and not over the wall as many of the 25,518 in attendance thought.  As a result, Buck had to settle for a bases-clearing ground rule double.  Buck drilled a laser beam and I thought it was heading over the fence as well.

There was no need to review this one.  Jose Bautista belted his 10th homer of the season over the left field wall in the sixth inning to increase the Jays lead to 5-1.

Brandon Morrow overcame a shaky first two innings to deliver a quality start as you can see from his linescore on the auxiliary scoreboard below.  He left the bases loaded with nobody out in the seventh but Jason Frasor limited the damage to one run by getting Vladimir Guerrero to ground out into a double play

After a scoreless eighth inning from Scott Downs, Kevin Gregg gives up a single but manages to earn his 11th save of the season.

Gregg induces an inning-ending ground ball play that is started by shortstop Alex Gonzalez and turned by Aaron Hill despite the best efforts of a sliding Ian Kinsler.

Hill completes the throw to first baseman Lyle Overbay to get Max Ramirez to end the game.  Jays win!!!  Jays win!!!

10 Photos - Jays vs. Rangers Apr 16/2010 | 41 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
China fan - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 01:22 PM EDT (#215487) #

 Great photos!!  

 In the absence of a TDIB thread, let me try to initiate today's edition of "Fun With Figures."   First fun fact:  Jose Bautista is on track for full-season totals of 50 home runs and 134 runs batted in.  Not bad for a back-up utility guy.  Remember all those loud moans and groans in March when we realized that Bautista might win a starting job in the outfield this year?

Second fun fact:  three Jays currently have an OPS of 1.000 or greater.  They are:  Shawn Camp; Shaun Marcum; and Edwin Encarnacion.   Which of those 3 names is the most surprising??

(As someone who was never impressed by EE in the past, I would happily eat crow and admit I was totally wrong if he's able to maintain even a pale shadow of this performance over the rest of this season.) 

92-93 - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 01:47 PM EDT (#215488) #
Purcey has been very solid over the last 2 weeks, and has only allowed earnies in 3 of 17 appearances this year while controlling LHB. Welcome back David and do us all a favour, yourself included, and THROW STRIKES. It's crazy how somebody like Roenicke can't find the K zone despite being brought into games that are already out of hand when the hitters are making much less of an effort to grind out an AB.
dan gordon - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 02:22 PM EDT (#215490) #

The vast majority have regarded Gonzalez, Bautista, Encarnacion and Buck as placeholders until some of the prospects are ready.  At some point it may make sense to change that view on one or more of these guys.  I noticed on the TV broadcast this weekend, they mentioned talking with somebody, D. Murphy I think, about Buck, and he said that Buck is a natural pull hitter and KC was getting him to go the opposite way.  The Jays broke him of that pattern and now he is back to what he does best, and they think he might be a 25-30 HR player.  I've always liked Encarnacion's bat and now he has 6 HR's in 6 games off the DL.  Gonzalez fields well and looks like he may hit 20-25 HR's.  I've been slow to change my mind on Bautista, but he's been doing this since late last August and maybe he really has developed his power at this stage of his career.  We're almost 2 months into the season.  At some point, maybe one (or a few) or these guys should be considered as possible longer term options.

earlweaverfan - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#215491) #
ChinaFan - thank-you for starting a 'Who'da thunkit (not me)' thread!!

When we started the season, i accepted most of the conventional wisdom that:
  • Gonzalez was a placeholder while we waited for a franchise shortstop to be found
  • Buck and Molina were black holes in the bottom of the batting lineup, again while we waited for a franchise catcher to show up
  • Wells was on a downhill slide that made his contract an increasing embarrassment
  • Encarnacion was a maybe slugger/mediocre fielder combo at 3B, who had last showed his true promise several seasons back
  • Snider was a big question mark, who had nothing more to prove at AAA, and a great future ahead of him, but would he start to click anytime this year?
  • Bautista was at best a better than average utility guy, but also being slotted into a lead-off role, for which he was the least inappropriate candidate
  • Hill and Lind were the only true power hitters we could count on, although because their production was deemed likely to fall off from last year, our home run output  would follow suit
Instead, who'da thunkit that, on May 24, the Jays would have:
  • A cast-off SF OF who would fill the lead-off spot brilliantly?
  • Wells, Gonzalez, Buck and especially Bautista among the league leaders in slugging at their positions?
  • Hill and Lind trailing the home run hitting of all four of them?
  • Encarnacion hitting six home runs in his first 50 at bats (following a stint on the DL)?
  • A major league-crushing lead in homers and doubles, while struggling to get their share of singles?
  • A real dilemma in trying to find room for three sluggers at two positions when Bautista, Encarnacion, and Snider are all healthy?
  • Three out of four minor league teams fully able to compete with the best in their league?
  • Several genuine catching prospects, all at once [Arencibia, Jerolman, Jiminez, d'Arnaud, Gomes...]?
  • More than 15 genuine additional prospects down in the mid-high minors all at once [Wallace, Thames, Calderone, Mastroianni, Loewen, Emaus, Drabek, Stewart, Magnuson, Alvarez, Huggins, Pastornicky, Hechavarria, Farina, Galley, McDade, Ramirez...all without tapping the highly competitive Lugnuts]?
Not me!  Speaking for myself, only the major league pitchers (oh, and Lyle Overbay) have appeared to be predictable, with just the mix of brilliant and frustrating performances that most people here expected.

What an amazing ride so far!!



CeeBee - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 03:26 PM EDT (#215492) #
It most likely won't last but I'm enjoying it while it does. Guess there is some reason why they actually play the games and most teams feel they have a chance if things break right. Too bad about the A.L. East tho..... Imagine if the Jays were in the central or west?
Mylegacy - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 04:02 PM EDT (#215495) #
What to do when Moonraker returns?

It looks like we sit the AL co-leader in HR's or the guy that's hit 6 HR in 6 games since his return from injury  - or - dare I say it - we could try Bautista at 1st and sit a guy hitting over 350 in his last 10 games - or - we could sit our new "improved" lead off hitter and have a team of mashers none of whom can get bat lead-off - just sayin'.

Makes me feel good to know:
1) I don't have to make the decision and
2) I drink scotch, mostly doubles (single malt natch') and
3) Whatever "they" decide I'm gonna bitch at some point.

uglyone - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 04:25 PM EDT (#215496) #
as well as he's played and as much as I like him, Lewis might have to sit I think, especially if Overbay keeps warming up.

no idea who hits leadoff then, but you can't sit EE or JB or Snider if they keep doing anything near what they've been doing.

uglyone - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 04:28 PM EDT (#215497) #
Hey guys, I need to know if I'm completely crazy or not....

I'm starting to think that mid-90s fastball lefty with two good out pitches and seemingly good command Rommie Lewis might be a real option as closer.

Crazy or Not?

ayjackson - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 06:04 PM EDT (#215500) #

Tampa leads the majors with 32 wins.  Next are 10 teams with 25 or 26 wins.

Well I thought it was a bit quirky.

ayjackson - Monday, May 24 2010 @ 06:08 PM EDT (#215501) #

180, 177, 168, 138, 128 - These are the ERA+'s of Tampa's starting five, through 44 combined starts.  Romero and Marcum would slot in as the #4 and #5 pitchers on this all star staff.

TamRa - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 01:04 AM EDT (#215506) #
Just as our surprising hitting won't last, TB's rotation won't be THAT good at the end of the year.

As for the Jays -

Gonzo has more homers than I expected but otherwise, he's about what I expected. But he's had abberational power before so I'm not stunned;

I had every confidence Wells would rebound and have a nice year this year. Not THIS nice, but i assume he'll cool some

Didn't see this coming with Buck at all. I'd have not scorned the idea he'd have a good power year but I would have laughed off the idea he could do it AND have a solid batting average too;

Didn't believe in Bautista as a starter at all, based on the previous inability to hit RHP...still not a member of the BAS for that matter, but props where due. The most stunning part of his reinvention, to me, is that almost all of his 2010 production has come ve RHP! I can't begin to explain what's going on , and i still am not sure how to react to it - but yeah, I was one of those who said he was a fine utility player with a lot of value in that role but not a starter. As to what happens when Snider returns, I wonder if it's possible to use him as a super-sub? Hew can spell everyone but SS and C and it seems like that would give him a chance to play pretty much 5 or 6 days a week with a lot of the other guys getting a day off every 8-10 games.

Encarnacion? I wouldn't say i was sold on the idea he'd have a big year but I was very sure that last year was no basis for assuming he wouldn't. I'm not that surprised if he produces well.


92-93 - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 02:19 AM EDT (#215509) #

Marcum-Romero-Cecil are pitching every bit as well as Garza-Shields-Price, if not better, once you get past ERA+ and look at things like FIP.

Wells and Gonzalez have already started the regression back to their career levels, with average Mays. Giving Snider 5 starts a week from the "bench" sounds like a nice idea, but has Clarence ever shown himself to be amenable to such a thing? It sure hasn't appeared so far that he's willing to rest a starter that often. We all wondered what would happen when Encarnacion got back, and as usual, it worked itself out on its own. I'll wait till Snider is ready to be activated from a wonky wrist, which people around here seem to think can take years to heal, before worrying about the roster crunch.

Tremendous start by Cecil, but I was astounded that Downs was brought into a 6-0 game for the 4th time in 6 games. Purcey & Roenicke are fresh.

China fan - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 04:46 AM EDT (#215511) #

I think WillRain was trying to suggest that Bautista (not Snider) should be the super-sub who plays 5 or 6 days a week.  (Snider is obviously not the type who can play everywhere except SS and C....  But you've gotta proof-read, WillRain, or people will think you're describing Snider as a super-sub!) 

Bautista will probably move around the lineup when Snider comes back, but I'm pretty sure he's going to be playing almost every day, as he has so far.  The way he is playing now, it will be very hard to bench the guy for more than a game every 2 or 3 weeks.  In fact he's played every game of the year so far.  So, where to slot him?  It would make sense to give an occasional day off to Snider and Encarnacion, since they've recently been injured, so Bautista will get some games that way.  He could get some days at 1B if Overbay doesn't improve dramatically.  He could get a day or two at DH and LF to rest the workhorses there, or to allow Lewis to slide into CF for a game or two.  But it's still a dilemma -- someone's going to have to ride the bench for more than one game a week when Snider returns. 

Most likely scenario:  someone picks up a minor injury, as inevitably happens as the season drags on, and we don't have to worry about any of these questions.

China fan - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 04:58 AM EDT (#215512) #

On the question about Scott Downs:  I have a hunch that Gaston might be prepping him for a possible role as closer.  There are growing concerns that Gregg can't handle the closer role every day.  He's gotten too tired, too soon.  He even struggled mightily in his single inning in the 12-4 laugher against Arizona on Sunday.   We might be seeing the "closer-by-committee" situation again, where Downs and even Frasor share the job sometimes with Gregg.   Or the job could go primarily to Downs.  In that scenario, Downs needs to get lots of work, to prep for a near-daily role, which might explain why he was given an inning against the Angels last night.

ayjackson - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 08:14 AM EDT (#215513) #

Marcum-Romero-Cecil are pitching every bit as well as Garza-Shields-Price, if not better, once you get past ERA+ and look at things like FIP.

Yes, I wasn't trying to get into a comparison of our pitching staffs (staves?).  I was just noting Tampa's ERAs for mere shock value. 

uglyone - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 10:21 AM EDT (#215515) #

Thing is about sitting Bautista is that he has flat out been our BEST hitter ever since he became a full time starter. Our best hitter. Bar none.

Moving him into the cleanup spot might be more reasonable than moving him to the bench.

Really, it seems pretty obvious that Overbay has to be the one who sits. Make Bautista the 1B and #5 hitter.

John Northey - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 11:34 AM EDT (#215517) #
Well, odds are Bautista won't keep this up but a 920 OPS is hard to sit.

He easily mixes into platoons of course (Overbay, Lind, Snider, Lewis - mainly with Overbay I'd expect). I suspect that once Snider is healthy and assuming EE doesn't get hurt again (or Lewis or Wells or Lind) that we'd see Bautista get a lot more time at 1B and Overbay being on the bench a lot more. After all, even with his 'hot streak' Overbay's numbers are still very poor (208/287/351). In fact, in his last 10 he has hit just 268/286/390 and for May his OPS is 666 which is fairly fitting I'd say.

I still say we'll see the Jays cut bait and accept their losses within a few weeks on Overbay. He isn't really getting better and with so many potential replacements hitting better I don't want an 87 Upshaw situation again (McGriff and Fielder were platooned at DH while Upshaw kept his job despite hitting for an 87 OPS+ after hitting for a 91 OPS+ the season before. For reference McGriff had a 130 and Fielder a 133 and other options that hit better than Upshaw also existed - anytime you wonder what happened in that 1987 race just look at Upshaw's 577 PA vs McGriff's 356 and Fielder's 197 and wonder what could've been.
vw_fan17 - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 02:53 PM EDT (#215523) #
Well, odds are Bautista won't keep this up but a 920 OPS is hard to sit.

Instead of 1st base, I'm starting to wonder if he can play 2nd.. Hill's numbers are still one notch below Overbay on the "ugly" scale.. Especially the "last 7 days": 456 OPS vs 833. It suggests Overbay's heating up a little, and Hill is still, well, rolling down the hill...

WillRain: Gonzo has more homers than I expected but otherwise, he's about what I expected.

you EXPECTED an 850 OPS from AG2 at this point? He of the career 695 OPS? I'm sorry, but I find that insanely hard to believe... (or, you're insane :-)
ayjackson - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 03:28 PM EDT (#215526) #
Well I suppose if Gonzo had 2 or 3 HRs instead of 10 or 11, his OPS would be a lot closer to his career average.
Moe - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 04:49 PM EDT (#215530) #
In fact, if you convert ten of his HR into singles he would have a .241/.354/.740 line. Almost exactly his career average.
92-93 - Tuesday, May 25 2010 @ 09:25 PM EDT (#215535) #

Snider is obviously not the type who can play everywhere except SS and C....

But he COULD be used to spell all 7 positions, which is what I assumed Will meant. It would just involve moving Bautista all over the field, not Snider.

TamRa - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 01:57 AM EDT (#215542) #
you EXPECTED an 850 OPS from AG2 at this point? He of the career 695 OPS? I'm sorry, but I find that insanely hard to believe... (or, you're insane :-)

Are you forgetting that if he had the amount of homers one might expect, his OPS wouldn't be remotely that high?

As I look at his page, seems he has too many doubles too. A reasonable (somewhat optimistic) expectation for this point would have been about 12 doubles and about 5 homers

So, if you take his extra power so far, and turn it into singles (which is generous because the more likely result of making a homer a non-homer is a long fly out)...

then his .538 SLG coming into tonight turns into .434 and that OPS turns into .743

thurn those excessive XBH into fly outs, and the SLG goes all the way down to .384, and the OPS becomes .693

So yeah, AG2 is the same guy he ever was except for 9 or 10 (probably flukey) XBH

In fact, take away Gonzo's first WEEK and his OPS drops almost 100 points to .769

Take the liberty of taking his first week, and the last game in April away and you have 38 other games with a cumulative slash line of -

.255/.287/.429/.716

And there, my friend, is the Gonzo we all expected.

He is what he always was, except he lucked into one hell of an opening week.


TamRa - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 02:06 AM EDT (#215544) #
But he COULD be used to spell all 7 positions, which is what I assumed Will meant. It would just involve moving Bautista all over the field, not Snider.

It's not the way I intended the sentence to be read but it's the exact same thing - If Snider plays RF six times out of seven so that JB can play elsewhere, it's really JB who's spelling them, not Snider.

92-93 - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 02:26 AM EDT (#215546) #
Ya, except Bautista remains the guy who must play everyday in Clarence's mind, with Snider getting more methodical usage.
92-93 - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 02:41 AM EDT (#215547) #
Heck, I'd have no problem with Bautista at SS to give AGon a breather with Morrow on the mound!
China fan - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 08:20 AM EDT (#215548) #

Come on, WillRain, you can't try to justify a wrong prediction by claiming that Gonzalez was "lucky" or "flukey" to get a bunch of home runs.   That's not serious analysis in any way -- that's New Age spiritualism.  He hit a bunch of timely homers, the Jays won some ball games -- deal with it.  Or should we remove those wins from the official standings too? 

If you're going to remove 10 homers from Gonzalez's season totals to justify your prediction, why not add them to Overbay's totals and claim that Overbay was just "unlucky" and should have had 10 extra homers?  Then suddenly you could argue that Overbay is as good as ever!  Anyone can "prove" any point at all if you're arbitrarily removing homers from one guy and claiming he was "lucky."   If you're going to delete the best week of Gonzalez's season, along with another good game from later in the season, you're just selectively manipulating statistics to make an absurd point.  That way lies madness.

Now, if you want to predict that Gonzalez is playing over his head and will soon regress to the mean -- fine, make the prediction, and we'll see at the end of the season whether you're right or wrong.  But please don't delete statistics like a magician to "prove" your prediction.

Forkball - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 08:43 AM EDT (#215549) #
You should incorporate some of these recent photos into the banner - I don't think Doc is coming back any time soon.
TamRa - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#215555) #

Come on, WillRain, you can't try to justify a wrong prediction by claiming that Gonzalez was "lucky" or "flukey" to get a bunch of home runs. 

A wrong prediction? I admitted up front I was wrong...about how many homers hes hitting. What I said, and what was challeneged, was that "Gonzo is what i expected except with more homers"

Saying "except" is saying "I was wrong about this"

the rebuttal only served to illustrate that the only thing different in THIS AG and previous years is - more homers.


That's not serious analysis in any way -- that's New Age spiritualism.  He hit a bunch of timely homers, the Jays won some ball games -- deal with it.  Or should we remove those wins from the official standings too? 

He hit some unexpected homers....which is what distinguishes him from what we might have expected - where's the confusion in that?

If you're going to remove 10 homers from Gonzalez's season

Ten extra base hits actually, 5 or 6 double and 4 or 5 homers, but go on...

totals to justify your prediction, why not add them to Overbay's totals and claim that Overbay was just "unlucky" and should have had 10 extra homers? 

Overbay may well have been unlucky. I'd have no hesitation in predicting that from today to the end of the season, if both played every day, Overbay will almost certainly have the better OPS over that span. If I'd been speaking of Overbay I might well have said "he ought to have five or six homers by this point in the year" but the difference with O'bay isn't a question of power, it's a question of hits. And it's a much shakier thing to guess at how many more hits a guy should have had.


but hey, while it's on my mind...if you were to give Overbay one more hit every four games, just a single, he'd see his OPS go all the way to .761 which is still somewhat under his career rates but reasonable.

But back to Gonzo...

Then suddenly you could argue that Overbay is as good as ever!  Anyone can "prove" any point at all if you're arbitrarily removing homers from one guy and claiming he was "lucky." 

It depends on the context. It's certainly true that taking the one game at the end of April was arbitrary - done for dramatic effect.

BUT when you say "every game since the first week" - that's a substantial body of work and not an arbitrary selection any more than the classic "he sucked in April and hit great in May" which is commonly used is.

I'm not denying that he has the total he has, or saying he doesn't deserve credit for what he did - I'm only probing the assertion that "outside of some unexpected power (confined mostly to the first week of the season) he's been pretty much exactly what we all expected him to be."

He had a .946 OPS in April, and a .739 OPS so far in May - which would you say is the more likely predictor of what he'll do the rest of the season?

Further, are you suggesting that players DON'T hacve a lucky stretch from time to time (and conversely an unlucky one)? do you think Aaron Hill is REALLY a .588 hitter this year? Or has he been unlucky?

 If you're going to delete the best week of Gonzalez's season, along with another good game from later in the season, you're just selectively manipulating statistics to make an absurd point.  That way lies madness.

Not so. I've had this discussion for years. Most recently with jesse Carlson. People say "Carlson sucked in 2009" - Really, he didn't remotely. He sucked VERY badly in two isolated stretch of games which skewed his totals. Out side those stretches, for 80, 90% of his season, he was almost as good as he was in 2008.

That, IMO, is a valuable bit of information. it stands opposed to his having been a guy who never went more than a couple of appearances without giving up a run and was thus unreliable as a close-game reliever.

In Gonzalez's case, the point is that if you were building your lineup now, and decided "I'll bat Gonzo second because he's got a .847 OPS, you are screwing yourself because he hasn't been THAT guy since early April.

Now, if you want to predict that Gonzalez is playing over his head and will soon regress to the mean -- fine, make the prediction, and we'll see at the end of the season whether you're right or wrong.  But please don't delete statistics like a magician to "prove" your prediction.

A. I wasn't proving a prediction by admitting the prediction had a pretty obvious flaw in the first sentence;

B. more to the point, the whole purpose of the rebuttal was not to say "he will regress to the mean" but "he already has" - The longer the season wears on the more the skewed early season OPS will deflate.

If you look at his history, HEW there are outlier seasons in which he hit a lot of homers - 2007 was arguably his best season before he got hurt and his OPS was .793 - I could EASILY be wrong about my expectations. Heck, if he regresses to something similar to his 162 game average he's going to end up with 20 homers. 

But we have a lot of people here (rightly) saying "since last September Bautista has..."

That statement dismisses FIVE months of 2009 and keeps ONE - but I haven't noticed your post reminding everyone that we can't forget the five.

Noticing a trend in statistical accumulation is sound analysis and happens ALL the time. Outside of excepting that one game on April 30, that's exactly what I did. And even then, it's worthy of notice that ONE game out of 39 adds over 50 points of OPS to his record over that time.

China fan - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 12:48 PM EDT (#215560) #

WillRain, you're still not making much sense.  You seem to be saying that it's a valuable analytical tool to remove a batch of home runs from Gonzalez's totals, remove a bunch of his good games, and make conclusions based on his mediocre games, his outs and his singles.  How is that helpful?  Any player's season is built on good games as well as bad games.  It's absurd to remove a few of the good games and call them "luck."  If Gonzalez (or anyone else) has a great game, that's not an outlier that should be removed from his totals -- that's how a player builds his statistics.

If you could show that Gonzalez began the season on a hot streak and then steadily deteriorated and played badly over a long period of time, this might be useful data.  But it's obviously not true.  Over the past 10 games, he is batting .324, which is again above your expected numbers for him.  He's been up and down all season, like most players, but there's no evidence that his good games were just a few isolated games at the start of the season.

You're basically proposing that we should delete one of Gonzalez's best-performing games from late April -- along with the entire first week of the season -- and evaluate his record without those good games.  How is this helpful?  Every player in the league has exceptionally good games -- that's baseball. An exceptional performance is not "luck" -- it's something that counterbalances the bad games.  You have to add up the good games and bad games and weigh everything.  You can't remove their exceptional games purely on the basis that they are exceptional. 

China fan - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#215565) #

People say "Carlson sucked in 2009" - Really, he didn't remotely. He sucked VERY badly in two isolated stretch of games which skewed his totals. Out side those stretches, for 80, 90% of his season, he was almost as good as he was in 2008.  That, IMO, is a valuable bit of information. it stands opposed to his having been a guy who never went more than a couple of appearances without giving up a run and was thus unreliable as a close-game reliever.

In fact, the Carlson example is a perfect illustration of my point, not your point.   By deleting the "isolated bad stretches" from Carlson's totals last year, you managed to convince yourself that Carlson was still as good as he was in his excellent 2008 season.  Your mistaken conclusion:  Carlson is still a good pitcher.  In reality, as 2010 shows, Carlson has deteriorated badly since 2008.   His numbers this year -- at the AAA level, not the majors -- are pretty miserable:  an ERA of 6.10, with the opposition hitting .340 against him.  Yes, he was demoted for injury rehab at the start of 2010, but are you going to blame the injury for everything in 2010?  Other pitchers have recovered a lot faster than him.  (And if he truly was injured, he wouldn't be playing.)  It's much more likely that there's a trend in his performance since 2008, and not a good trend.  So, keep manipulating statistics if you want -- delete the good stretches or the bad stretches, dismiss some games as "luck" and cherry-pick the results that you want to believe -- but it doesn't necessarily give you any insight into the truth about a player.

TamRa - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 02:06 PM EDT (#215569) #
WillRain, you're still not making much sense.  You seem to be saying that it's a valuable analytical tool to remove a batch of home runs from Gonzalez's totals, remove a bunch of his good games, and make conclusions based on his mediocre games, his outs and his singles.

Nope. Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that since a specific date he has been the sort of player we thought we were getting on opening day. And that the sample size I am citing wildly outweighs the abberational sample of good work which is a textbook case of "hot streak"

Albeit, with one exceptional game in that stretch which skews his OPS upwards by 50 points.

This is both an observation of a trend (what has he done over the last seven weeks?) and an observation regarding the ability of abborational events to wildly skew a small sample.

If Gonzalez (or anyone else) has a great game, that's not an outlier that should be removed from his totals -- that's how a player builds his statistics.

Indeed, I don't see how that point stands in argument to my point.

Again, my original statement was "except for surprising power, Gonzo has been what I expected"

My rebuttal demonstrated that, in point of fact, the one statistical event that caused Gonzalez's season OPS to be higher than his career pattern is - more homers.

The elaboration upon that demonstration was not necessary to prove the point - which the original point was ONLY that Gonzo is Gonzo, except with more homers than I expected....which point is, I think, conclusively demonstrated.

but that elaboration - that not only were the unexpected homers the only  reason why his overall slash lines looked so good, but that it so happens that most of them occurred during a single hot streak to open the season and that since then he has been a relatively ordinary bat as might be expected.

Even if you dispute the validity of saying "since date X, Y has happened" (odd given how VERY often that sort of rhetoric is employed here and elsewhere) that still doesn't undermine the fact that the original assertion - unexpected power skewed OPS in small sample masking otherwise typical performance - was demonstrated.

if you could show that Gonzalez began the season on a hot streak and then steadily deteriorated and played badly over a long period of time, this might be useful data.


Exactly what I did. - Albeit that depends on what you mean by "playing badly" - I didn't say badly, I said typically.

But it's obviously not true.  Over the past 10 games, he is batting .324, which is again above your expected numbers for him.

Wait, what? last 10 is valid and last 39 isn't?

I cited you the month of May - there's nothing more common in terms of doing breakouts on a season than monthly totals (except maybe pre- and post- break or pre- and post- injury)  -

In May he's hitting .247/.287/.416/.703

And that includes your excellent 10 games stretch. Is this or is this not the Alex Gonzalez pretty much everyone assumed we'd get in 2010? How is stating that in any way less credible than the repeated descriptions of what Bautista has done since becoming a full time player?

Frankly, look at it side by side:

First week: .333/.375/.867/1.242
39 g since: .256/.288/.462/.750

You are attempting to argue that this is NOT a guy who had one hot week and then regressed towards the mean? and all the more so since the Month of May as a whole has been well worse than the 39 game total?

He's been up and down all season, like most players, but there's no evidence that his good games were just a few isolated games at the start of the season.

His season OPS, as of this writing, is .829

YES, he has been up and down - streaky - as with many players. it is possible to cite at least three other stretches of 8-10 games in his season in which he had an OPS over .800

BUT by your own argument, saying "this week was hot and this one was not" has no value. Luckily, that's not what i did. I cited his WHOLE season after the first week (and noted in passing how much difference one really good game made in that total)

I'll give you a bonus here. I could have taken the whole season since the first week and dropped the WORST game and made him look better for dramatic effect. I TOLD you the one game on April 30 wasn't a part of making the overall point.

Still, now that I look closer, I shouldn't have done that because I can make the same point, better, without that astrisk. If I look at his first TEN games instead of seven, it looks like this:

.349/.378/.767/.1.145 (10 games)

And since (including April 30) (36 games)

.245/.280/.455/.735

Again, obvious and undeniable regression towards the mean over the course of a large enough sample to indicate a trend - with no games excepted along the way.

but to your specific comment - there is EVERY evidence to that effect.

In his first 10 games his cummulitive WPA was 0.329, in the 36 games since his cummuilitive WPA is 0.127

How much more obvious can it be?

You're basically proposing that we should delete one of Gonzalez's best-performing games from late April -- along with the entire first week of the season -- and evaluate his record without those good games.

No, I was proposing dropping the first week - the late April game was just dramatic license which I rescinded. Again, the point in dropping that game, though, was to demonstrate how much one great game could change the slash lines.

Now I'm proposing dropping the first 10 and looking at everything since, so as to avoid that admittedly unsound action.

Every player in the league has exceptionally good games -- that's baseball. An exceptional performance is not "luck" -- it's something that counterbalances the bad games.


I'd suggest that very often, the exceptional game - either good or bad - is exceptional because of some factor of luck - a bad hop, a wind blown drive, etc - whether good luck or bad. It's only in the larger totals that a pattern of actual talent level is revealed.

hill is NOT remotely as bad as his lines suggest, even if he's doing poor work as compared to his usual levels, and Gonzo is NOT as good as his slash lines suggest. both the good luck (for Gonzo) and the bad (for Hill) will tend to wash out over larger sample sizes.

The underlying theme of this exercise is to demonstrate that Gonzo's totals are skewed because about 1/5 of the sample is abberational. When that abboration is 1/16th instead, you'll have a fairer picture of his year.
 
This doesn't mean the homers don't count, or that we can't be happy they were hit - but it does mean it's a fools errand to suggest that because he has 10 homers to this point that there's AAAAAANY possibility that hes going to pass 30 on the season (as it would pro-rate to) - to return to the original point:

Gonzo is the same old Gonzo, except he has more homers than anyone would have expected to this point.

I still don't see that as a questionable statement.

TamRa - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 02:26 PM EDT (#215573) #
re Carlson

Without getting into a point by point-

the reason you are missing the point in that example is because you describe it as if I'm cherry picking out bad games which have no obvious relation to each other - a bad one here, a bad one 10 days later, another bad one 16 days after that.

But that's not what's happening.

You can take every game from June 12 to Sept 14 - three months worth of appearances covering 39 outings, and he has an ERA over that stretch of 3.93

Take Opening day to May 26 and it's 3.16 (and the underlying stats are solid too, I know reliever's ERA is a pretty poor measure)

In between those are 2 appearances over 7 days in which he gave up 8 earned runs in 1.1 IP.

I can't see that in makes any sense to ignore solid - not great, not like 2008, but solid - work over 64 appearances over almost a full season because two VERY bad outings in consecutive appearances in the middle of it.

The other bad stretch was over his last six appearances, in which he posted a 7.11 ERA and I'm certainly open to the idea that something changed THEN which can be folded into what's happening in 2010.

But the fact remains that on 9/14 his ERA was 4.40 if you take out the appearances on May 27 and June 3 his ERA to that point goes all the way down to 3.30

You might not consider that significant, but I do.

bpoz - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 02:27 PM EDT (#215574) #
Have the Jays surprised us? We are getting killed by the usual inter-league, TB and Bos. Must be killing everyone else. That is the same as last year. EXCEPT!!! 1) No devastating road trip. 2) No bad A Rios/V Wells to be replaced by Hill/Lind (will it be all year & can Cito adjust). 3)In 09 Litch/Purcey (zero) Roy/Rickey/Scott. 2010 Shaun/Rickey then Tallet/Eveland/Morrow (better?). 4) Closer issues (equal?) By mid July we will have a bigger sample size against TB etc...My nature is too optimistic to do a rational analysis of the future. Surprising Scutoro is gone (2 picks) replacements for him and everyone else so far have been very good. But how much of a net loss is Rolen? JB 15Hr (1/3 season) he may pick up that pace and have a career year. 2009 was Roy and 4 very new starters. 2010 has the same guys but more experienced so hopefully they are better against TB etc.. Cito said AA will decide the 5th starter situation before leaving LAA. AA's decisions will and have impacted this team eg to keep assets (spring training winners lost out to options). But at that time it was "development not winning". We can both win & develop now because as most Bauxites have inputted we have capable replacements (farm & returning injured) to plug in as needed. Cito has been encouraging to his under-performers, loyal and patient as usual to everyone (V. Wells). Somehow the slack is picked up by someone. I guess JP should get some credit, a lot of these players are his as is a lot of the farm. To win he also successfully brought in big name FAs in the off season, then he scooped up in mid season cheap but experienced players eg Wilkerson but too many injuries and being in the AL East killed his teams. If AA has a contender (what ever that means in the AL East) by mid July then he will be forced to deal with it. AA brought in nothing great for the ML team because based on 2009 we could not contend. Some short term assets have increased in value eg JB/Gregg etc... Others like Tallet have likely lost too much time to injury to quickly become a valuable July 31th trading chip as a starter but whenever healthy has time to show a lot of value (reliever) especially since he should have the pitch variety of a starter. Uglyone.. R Lewis closer stuff... Henke came from nowhere. Guys I don't think the farm can provide any position player help to this team except for Reed and Chavez as backups (experience/defense). The pitching depth IMO is solid, extra pen help is plentiful. Cecil lost out to options but based on the 1st 2 starts both Mills & L Perez were better than him. IMO Morrow is our 5th starter for 10,11,12 (long rope) very high potential. Are 2 options each (09,10) used up for Mills & Perez. If so then for development IMO they trump Tallet and it is critical they get a fair opportunity to prove their ML capabilities. I would give Mills the 5th starter right now, like Purcey did up for 1 game then down and up again when his turn came again. I would keep the extra reliever in town too. Does anyone know how & what these transaction rules are? That is my $.02.
China fan - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#215584) #

WillRain, your arguments keep shifting around.  You keep choosing different periods of the 2010 season and shifting your focus all the time, so it's hard for me to keep track of your argument.  But let me try to summarize the main points of your several lengthy posts about Alex Gonzalez and his 2010 season:  1) we shouldn't consider his first week of the season;  2) we shouldn't consider his first 10 games;  3) we shouldn't consider his last 10 games;  4) we shouldn't consider his game on April 30;  5) we should only consider the 39 games that you have specifically chosen because you think they fit your theory.  Well, actually, make that 36 games.

I happen to disagree with the idea of cherry-picking a stretch of games to fit your theory, while ignoring all the games that contradict your theory, but -- just for the sake of argument -- let's look at those 36 games.  Even in those 36 games, Gonzalez's OPS and SLG are significantly above his career average -- at an age when he should be declining, not improving.

You obviously feel that the first 10 games were "aberrational" and the next 36 games should be viewed in isolation from the 10 games before it.  But if take any player in baseball, find the "aberrational" games, and remove them from his season totals, obviously his numbers will be grossly reduced.  What does it prove?  It proves that every player in baseball has good stretches and bad stretches.  If you remove the good stretches, hey, wow -- his numbers are lower!   Suddenly, any all-star is looking very ordinary.  In fact, the whole league would look average, because that's what happens when you remove the "aberrations" -- you're left with a bunch of very average and boring players.  And you don't prove anything at all.

China fan - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT (#215585) #

In fact, here's something you might enjoy:  take the top 10 hitters in the AL, find the "aberrational" games where they hit better than average, and remove those games from their season totals.  Then, remark on the fact that all of them look worse!

I'll be over here, finding a better use for my time.

TamRa - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 10:52 PM EDT (#215625) #
WillRain, your arguments keep shifting around.  You keep choosing different periods of the 2010 season and shifting your focus all the time, so it's hard for me to keep track of your argument.

Baloney.

I changed it ONCE - in order to take away the admittedly suspect urge to except that one April 30 game. I shifted from first 7 games to first 10. I'm sure that's confusing but read over it a couple of times.

;)

1) we shouldn't consider his first week of the season;  2) we shouldn't consider his first 10 games;

Two replaces one, not in addition to.

  3) we shouldn't consider his last 10 games;

Never said that. I said that if you cite his last 10, you are doing exactly what I'm doing only my sample size is bigger.

 4) we shouldn't consider his game on April 30; 

Dropped to make the discussion more straightforward.

5) we should only consider the 39 games that you have specifically chosen because you think they fit your theory.  Well, actually, make that 36 games.

If you really believed that I was excluding the last 10 (clearly i never did) then the cited sample would be 26, which I've never cited.

I've argued for the most recent 36, now 37 games. Since when is the most recent work (in a decent sample size)  such an odd request?

You obviously feel that the first 10 games were "aberrational" and the next 36 games should be viewed in isolation from the 10 games before it.

You obviously are having some problems grasping what I'm arguing - which is simply that the MORE RECENT sample, and LARGER sample trumps the older and smaller sample. that the 36 games give us MORE information than the 10 - not that the 10 are useless.

And yeah, ANY hot streak is an abboration, by definition - as is any exceptionally cold streak - until the sample size gets big enough that it's not just a "streak" or a "slump" anymore. Admittedly, it's a debateable point when the sample is too large to qualify.

But if take any player in baseball, find the "aberrational" games, and remove them from his season totals, obviously his numbers will be grossly reduced.  What does it prove?

If that's what I did, you'd have a point. the games I refer to are grouped together and predate the sample I'm citing. Why will you not address the Bautista discussion I keep pointing out to you?

why have you never argued this before when someone says "since he came off the DL encarnacion has hit..." or "Since the first of may Snider has hit..." or any of a thousand other referances?

You describe it as if i went through and picked out 10 unrelated games spread over the whole season and said "except for these 10 unrelated games" - which would be nonsense, but that's not what's happening here.

If you remove the good stretches, hey, wow -- his numbers are lower!


Again, since that's not what I did, why do you go on about it? What I did was isolate the FIRST 10 games. I'd happily take away the FIRST 10 games of any player and suggest to you that the 40ish games since have more weight in telling you what sort of player he is.

Remember that dude who hit three homers on opening day several years ago and was back in the minors for good before June (I can't remember his name at the moment)? that's because the fact that he had 3 or 4 homers in the first week didn't mean he was a guy who was going to his 30 by midseason.

following on from your point though, I'll consider ANY analysis with a decent sample that says "what has this player done since a significant milestone" with all the games since taken as a whole.

what has Bautista done since Murphy changed his swing? what has Sheets done since the found out his was tipping his pitches? What has Player X done since recovering from lingering injury? what has player y done since being recalled from his minor league demotion?

so forth and so on. such descriptions happen all the time and happen for a reason.

what has player x done in May? (ask at the first of June) what has player y done since the All Star Break? what has he done since becoming a full time player?

On and on it goes.

there is a decided, specific, and obvious difference between "what has he done SINCE  his first 10?" (or since whatever) and "what has he done other than in his 10 best games?"

(Hell, those first 10 were not even 10 good games but simply a very good stretch collectively)

It is, in fact, so obvious that I cannot accept the idea that you think they are exactly the same. You have no history of being that obtuse.

In any case, I can't explain it in any simpler terms, and you seem to be saying you're not willing for us to keep beating the horse which is best, I think.
Spifficus - Wednesday, May 26 2010 @ 11:50 PM EDT (#215627) #
If I may weigh in on Gonzalez for a second, he's done what he has always done whenever he's hit 10 or more homers - put 6-8 in the bank with a good 30 game power run. I'd be skeptical that this would be much different, especially with the other numbers looking normal.

OK. Carry on.
John Northey - Thursday, May 27 2010 @ 12:16 AM EDT (#215629) #
Gonzo the 2nd is pretty close to expected outside of the first 10 games - sounds reasonable to me. Another way of putting is... he started hot but over the last 30 game has come back to his old ways.

Before todays game Gonzo^2 has hit (outside of those first 10 games) 245/280/455 vs career figures of 248/294/401 which seems awfully close.

So can we all just agree that Gonzo had a hot start then returned to being himself?
China fan - Thursday, May 27 2010 @ 04:16 AM EDT (#215632) #
My main points about Gonzalez are these:  1) the 10 games at the start of the season are not completely irrelevant, are not the distant past, and shouldn't be dismissed as cavalierly as WillRain has done;   2) even if you subtract the first 10 games of the season (which I disagree with), his OPS and SLG are 50 points above his pre-2010 career averages, and again this cannot be dismissed as cavalierly as WillRain has done.    And with that, let's agree to disagree....
92-93 - Thursday, May 27 2010 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#215644) #
Will, I don't know how others feel, but I won't even bother reading a post that lacks proper sentence/paragraph structure. It would help your discussions if your posts didn't look so cumbersome.
TamRa - Thursday, May 27 2010 @ 10:33 PM EDT (#215676) #
I got a lot of advice in the past about breaking up long bodies of text - using "paragraphs" that were no more than 3 or 4 sentences long at best - for ease of reading on-line (as opposed to in print)

Now I get advice that my paragraph structure is improper.

*shrug*

dif'rent strokes I guess.

I've explained before that I try to write in a fashion that simulates the cadence of speech, as much as is practical, because these sorts of exchanges are more like arguing over a beer at the pub than writing an article for a magazine.

that's why I make "improper" use of, for instance, ellipses and - and () and so forth.

I suppose if someone is enough of a stickler for proper usage that that bothers them, they'll just have to skip it. I'm sure if I go by the book someone will surely find something wrong. I'm not a perfectionist and I seldom proofread (plus, on top of that, my right-clickable spell check doesn't work right on this board and I'm often too lazy to use a word processor and paste it over.

Bottom line is that I consider this sort of thing "casual conversation" (unless I'm starting the thread) and thus I'd rather speak my peace and move on than sweat grammar and paragraph construction.

If I lose a reader I guess I'll have to accept that as the cost of doing business so to speak.

10 Photos - Jays vs. Rangers Apr 16/2010 | 41 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.