Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Litsch and Romero lead the world-beating Jays into a two-game home series against the first-place Rays.


After Kyle Drabek ran over our neighbors Monday and last night's game got rained out, John Farrell is keeping his rotation in order and moving everyone back a day. Jesse Litsch faces Jeremy Hellickson tonight, Ricky Romero draws Wade Davis tomorrow, and everyone else gets the Astros. That sounds sensible. I might have considered bumping Litsch back to Friday and letting the Rays deal with the originally scheduled starters, Romero and Jo-Jo Reyes. In the early going Tampa has fared better against RH than LH pitchers, and it can't hurt to have lefties on the hill to shut down the Rays' prolific running game*. On the other hand, the splits are dubious because Evan Longoria missed a month; it will be nice to at least make Michael Bourn deal with one lefty on the weekend; and Litsch, with his snappy delivery, is pretty good at locking down the running game himself. In his 384 career innings, basestealers are 13-for-24. And the Astros have been dreadful so far. Facing them will give Reyes a very good chance at the elusive Pitcher Win that will wash away the aura of bornloseritis that haunts him in high-leverage situations. I'm fine with this.

*The Rays are actually the second most prolific basestealing team in this series: they're 40/54, but Toronto is 43/58. That sounds so wrong. And so right. 

Joe Maddon is impressed by Jose Bautista: "... tremendous plate discipline with this full-force hack going on. It's really unusual to see that. He's different right now." When asked whether he'd be intentionally walking Bautista this series, he rattled off the predictable non-answers. Bautista was injured for the Jays' trip to St. Pete two weeks ago, but you have to figure Maddon remembers the last time Bautista faced Tampa – he homered twice off David Price, the second time on a clear unintentional intentional walk. This week, I expect Maddon to learn from his mistake and call for the wide ones when it matters. For one thing, with Adam Lind out, Bautista has very little protection. I'd almost like to see Corey Patterson hit fourth. At the moment he's no worse than Rivera or Encarnacion or Hill against righty pitching, and unlike them at least Patterson isn't a double play threat. For another thing, Maddon has a flair for showy managerial moves – he surrendered the DH in the middle innings of a comeback win here last year, and in 2008 he famously walked Josh Hamilton with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth when he represented the tying run. The Rays won that one, too.

Jeremy Hellickson is riding high after a four-hit CGSO against the Orioles. His season by the numbers: 7 starts, 6.5 IP/GS, 3.7 P/PA, 15.9% K, 9.5% BB, 2.1% HR, 37.4% GB, .243 BABIP, 2.98 ERA. He throws changeups more than 30% of the time, and there's an 11-mph velocity difference off the fastball. Strange that he doesn't have more strikeouts if his change is really that good, but the season is still young.

Hellickson, Litsch, and (most likely) Eric Thames' big-league debut. Big game. Jays -130 at 7:07.
18 May 2011: Donuts On Your Lawn | 35 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
uglyone - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 12:46 PM EDT (#235102) #
Kind of a big series, at least for May. It's a shame we couldn't play (and win) last night, else we might have had a chance to move into 1st place this series. The Rays' pen has been regressing to the mean lately, so hopefully we can work their starters a bit and force them out early.


But I also commented here because I wanted to bring up another AL East related point - I wanted to talk about Matsuzaka and Lackey's "injuries".

Is this blatant abuse of the DL? Do we believe they are injured? Do we care? What does it say that a $170m "powerhouse" team is resorting to gaming the DL in such a blatant way?
ayjackson - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 12:57 PM EDT (#235103) #

Is it "unintentional intentional walk" or "intentional unintentional walk"?

mathesond - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 01:04 PM EDT (#235104) #
ayj - I prefer the latter

uglyone - regarding getting into Tampa's bullpen, the always trustworthy Yahoo Fantasy Baseball notes suggests that Hellickson will be on a bit of a pitch count tonight (100-105 pitches) after throwing for around 120 in his last start.

And I'm looking forward to the game - my Rogers rep reminded me that he's taking me to the game tonight (owner's box - free food 'n' drink!), it'll be my first game of the season
China fan - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 01:11 PM EDT (#235105) #

Further to yesterday's discussion about Brett Cecil and his current velocity:  Farrell is now saying that Cecil needs to do more work in Las Vegas and is not close to being called up.  Here's an excerpt from John Lott's report:

Farrell said Cecil’s velocity reached 91 but was typically in the high 80s.  His command was unexceptional as well.  “The overall velocity, the execution of pitches was average, I would say. I think he had a tendency to pitch up in the [strike] zone a little bit more than he had in his previous three starts, so it’s still a work in progress,” Farrell said.  Opponents are batting .302 against Cecil in the minors. In 30 innings, he has a 6.00 ERA. He has struck out 23, walked 10 and given up 10 home runs.

Matthew E - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 01:19 PM EDT (#235106) #
Is it "unintentional intentional walk" or "intentional unintentional walk"?

See, now, I think those are two different things. The first is an intentional walk that's really unintentional, and the second is an unintentional walk that's really intentional.
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 01:26 PM EDT (#235108) #

Matthew, I understand what you're saying, and i was doing the same grammatical parsing -- but how would one issue "an intentional walk that's really unintentional"? Is that possible? A pitcher isn't going to accidentally miss the strike zone by four feet four times ...

I'm probably missing something obvious, sorry.

Parker - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 01:45 PM EDT (#235109) #
A pitcher isn't going to accidentally miss the strike zone by four feet four times ...

Didn't Rick Ankiel do that?

[drum fill]
dan gordon - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 02:57 PM EDT (#235111) #
Announcers always call it an unintentional intentional walk, and it always makes me laugh.  That would mean that, without intending to do it, the catcher stood up, held his arm out to call for a wide pitch, and the pitcher, without intending to do it, threw him the pitch there. and that happened 4 times.  Of course, what it is, is an intentional unintentional walk, which means they are not pitching strikes, but not issuing an official intentional walk.  I have no idea how the phrase unintentional intentional walk got started as the descriptive phrase for what really is an intentional unintenional walk, but it caught on, and that's what everybody uses. 
Chuck - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 03:06 PM EDT (#235112) #
How about the hit & run which is always really a run & hit?

Is a baserunner at first ever told (in situations other than with two outs): once the batter hits the ball, don't look to see where he hit, just run. He will hit it and you will run. That's our plan. It's called a hit & run. We've had our best minds working through the night and that's what we've come up with.
Flex - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 03:16 PM EDT (#235113) #
have no idea how the phrase unintentional intentional walk got started

I think it's a bastardization of "Unofficial intentional walk" but someone thought "Unintentional intentional walk" sounded cleverer.
Matthew E - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 03:39 PM EDT (#235114) #
Mick: Parker's answer is as good as any explanation I could come up with.
China fan - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 03:47 PM EDT (#235116) #
Tonight's lineup has Aaron Hill batting clean-up; Encarnacion at 1B batting 5th; Thames at DH batting 7th;  Nix at 3B batting 9th.
92-93 - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 04:13 PM EDT (#235118) #
I wonder why Farrell had Encarnacion-Hill 4-5 and Nix-Davis 8-9 yesterday and decided to switch them.
China fan - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 04:16 PM EDT (#235119) #
And when was the last time Hill has ever batted clean-up?  Seems a little odd for a struggling hitter, even one who perked up slightly in his last game.  Of course Farrell has no ideal solution in Lind's absence.  He even put Rivera in the 4th slot, and Hill is at least better than Rivera.
Gwyn - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 04:26 PM EDT (#235120) #
Hill has been in the cleanup spot at least a couple times this year I'm sure, I remember him being there in the opening homestand.
uglyone - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#235122) #
Hill apparently made some changes to his swing in the past week, and early returns are good.

I've pretty much given up on the guy, but he does have talent, and I'm glad that they're finally trying to change SOMETHING, even just to get him back to his .750ops line-drive pre-concussion form.
DaveB - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 05:01 PM EDT (#235123) #

Hill batted cleanup in the second series of the year, vs. Oakland, and had a hit in each game and drove in three runs. He's never faced Hellickson but has hit well in his career vs. the Rays (.896 career OPS) and has five hits in 10 career at-bats against Davis, Thursday's pitcher. He's probably as good a choice as any to bat clean-up for this series.


BlueJayWay - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 06:12 PM EDT (#235129) #
"Announcers always call it an unintentional intentional walk, and it always makes me laugh.  That would mean that, without intending to do it, the catcher stood up, held his arm out to call for a wide pitch, and the pitcher, without intending to do it, threw him the pitch there. and that happened 4 times."

LOL.

I get this image of the pitcher afterwards, "Oh dammit, I didn't mean to intentionally walk that guy!"
rtcaino - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 06:37 PM EDT (#235131) #
but how would one issue "an intentional walk that's really unintentional"?

It's intentional - because you intended to do walk the batter. 

But it's unintentional - because it does not fit the description of what we call an 'intentional walk'.

So it is not considered an intentional walk, despite your intention.
scottt - Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 08:06 PM EDT (#235135) #
How about the hit & run which is always really a run & hit?
 
In French, it's usually called  court & frappe. Although, I have seen both.

I bet Litsch would love to hit the shower, but Farell doesn't carry a long relief guy, so, as the game is likely lost, might as well have him throw as many innings as he can.


Alex Obal - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 05:25 AM EDT (#235140) #
Davis stealing third in the ninth: why? He wasn't the tying run. Even if the Rays were conceding third base, I would've preferred having Davis on second to force Farnsworth and Jaso to run through confusing signs.

Hellickson reminds me of Edwar Ramirez. Like, back when Edwar could command his pitches. A relatively little guy who makes hitters play cat and mouse with his changeup and, when he gets on a roll, makes them look totally clueless. I'm sold.
Chuck - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 06:27 AM EDT (#235141) #
Once Hellickson hits puberty, he's going to be dynamite.
mathesond - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 08:55 AM EDT (#235142) #
"Davis stealing third in the ninth: why?"

My best guess: Because I have him in my money league. He must have known that I benched Hamels last night while keeping Teheran, Norris, and Kershaw active.
Mike Green - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 09:02 AM EDT (#235143) #
...fantasy league payola.  It's a real problem in our town.
sam - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 09:50 AM EDT (#235144) #
I was at the game last night and if Edwin Encarnacion looked bad on TV, he looked twice as bad in person.  I mean if I was scoring he would've had four errors last night, not two.  He was a bag of toys over there.  And he certainly didn't help himself by popping up on a 3-0 pitch.   
sam - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 09:55 AM EDT (#235145) #
Also a lot has been made of the Matt Joyce catch last night.  In person it wasn't really that impressive.  I don't know if the camera picked this up but he got a pretty bad jump on the ball and his route to the ball was poor.  Sure it was a crucial catch but I'd say it was a fairly routine play. 
eudaimon - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#235146) #
Agreed, no point for Davis stealing third there.

And Encarnacion looks awful right now. He should never see 3rd base a game, and probably not 1st either. At this point he's a DH or nothing in my mind. Only reason to keep him at this point is to hope his hitting goes on a tear, which is still possible I suppose. My impression is that he's a bit of a space case.
China fan - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 10:34 AM EDT (#235147) #
It's a small sample size, admittedly, but Encarnacion has an OPS of .867 as a DH this season.  His OPS as a 3B is a dismal .483 and his OPS as a 1B is not much better at .552.  So I suppose there's maybe still hope for him if somehow the DH role is helping him to focus better on hitting.   When Lind is back, I'm hoping that we see Encarnacion strictly as a DH and PH (and emergency backup at the corners, but only in emergencies).  In that scenario, Rivera would have to be dumped (assuming Thames is doing well), but that's fine with me.
Lylemcr - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 11:23 AM EDT (#235149) #

Why is Nix playing at all?  At least MacDonald can hit a little bit and play defense.  There is a reason why we got Nix for a bucket of balls.  At his best, he is not very good.

I am not an E5 hater, but I can't stand the love people have for Nix.  E5 has at least a ceiling about 230 hitter with a couple of homeruns. 

On another note, I was impressed with Thames last night.  I thought he looked very solid last night.  He does not waste any swings.

 

Timbuck2 - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 11:42 AM EDT (#235154) #
I'm not surprised that EE's hitting better as a DH.  The fans were all over him last night (rightfully so) and it's apparent by the look on his face this is affecting him every time he touches the ball now - regardless if he's playing first or third.  He's no longer saying to himself "OK, just get the ball to first/second/third for the out".  Now it's pretty apparently "Just don't throw it away" - which he's doing more and more.  And after he does fudge up the throw it's "oh god, not another ball thrown away".   How can that not impact his play at the plate thinking about the mistakes?

Reminds me in a lot ways of the self implosion of Chuck Knoblauch a few years back.  The dude just could not make a decent throw to 1st if his life depended on it.   And this was after YEARS of playing 2nd base competently.  It just got into his head and he couldn't make the throw anymore.

For last night - watching that third inning was like watching a trainwreck.  I knew it was going bad but I couldn't help but watch and see just how bad it got.  By the end (judging by the looks on Jesse's and EE's faces) I'm pretty sure both EE and Jesse were praying to be pulled out of the game.  I even thought that Jesse looked like he was going to cry when Farrell came out to talk to him.

sam - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#235156) #
Another thing to note about EE.  Usually players will return to the dugout by the manager when they get out.  On the 3-0 pitch that he popped up he deliberately went to the far end of the dug out to seemingly avoid a talking to.  I don't know, but those are the things that probably irk managers.   From my playing days it was always one of those unspoken rules that you walk by your manager after getting out or making an error. 
subculture - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#235158) #
Hilarious Chuck!

EE:
- Could live with him if he was doing something well, besides consistently hitting really hard line drives foul.  He'd be an awesome cricket player.  Perhaps he could work out his timing issues as a DH, but he is not a fielder on a contending club.  Even though I like the idea of keeping the DH spot open to give your regulars a break...
 
Nix:
- I say give the guy a chance, at least he seems to play hard, no gaping mental issues that I've seen, and his ceiling may be higher than EE's (not saying much IMO)
 
Thames:
- My gut tells me he can be an above average offensive player, my head says he has the right attitude and approach (taking pitches for that walk was impressive), and I hope he spells the end of the Rivera stint with the Jays...  in fact yesterday I was actually thinking I'd like to see him batting behind JB (over other Jays options), when Lind is not available... I also think Arencibia should hit higher up than Hill...
 
Bullpen:
- Knock on wood, bc our bullpen is pretty damn impressive and going to win us a bunch of games
 
Davis:
- Looks like he needs some minor league games to build up his confidence, he looked terrible with all his swings except the hit.

ayjackson - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#235162) #
I agree with those here suggesting Bautista is to blame for the loss last night.  If he didn`t scorch that line drive within Fuld`s range in his last at bat, or if he had gotten to the plate one more time, I think we would have won.
China fan - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 03:05 PM EDT (#235168) #

Encarnacion is out of the lineup tonight, and Rivera is playing 1B for the first time this season.  He did play 13 games at 1B for the Angels last year, so he's not totally foreign to the position, but prior to 2010 he only played 1B in a single major-league game.  So 14 games in his career.  Not a lot. 

Encarnacion cannot be pleased about it.  He's lost his DH job to a rookie, he's lost his 3B job to a couple of veterans with a lifetime OPS of below .700 and he's lost his 1B job to a 32-year-old guy who has barely played at 1B in his entire career.

eudaimon - Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 04:27 PM EDT (#235180) #
Might not be happy but probably for the best. After yesterday he could probably use a day off to clear his head.
18 May 2011: Donuts On Your Lawn | 35 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.