Thoughts on last night: Cooper clearly has a lot of power, because that was a line drive home run to the opposite field. The wind was blowing that way, but still, off the bat I had no idea it would be a HR (neither did Martinez calling the game, he seemed completely caught off guard when it went out) . The question is whether he'll be able to consistently access the power, but after the last few years, just doing it once in a while and replacing Overbay's averagish 1B production would be a nice change. On the replay of the HR, it showed him running to first base - it appeared Cooper might be Olerud-slow. It looked like he almost fell over trying to run. Cooper will not be filling in somewhere else defensively.

Rasmus - this is a genuine hot streak for a Toronto hitter. Great to see from the non-EE/Bautista part of the lineup.

Lawrie - he seems to be trying to use his speed, rather than his power. To my untrained eye, he's had too much weight on his front side to effectively drive the ball most of the year. The upside is this allows him a running start and he legs out hits and doubles. The downside is that he won't slug .450 this way. Are the Jays asking him him to hit this way? It's notably different to the general "swing from heels and try to hit HR" approach that seems to be the standard. Maybe it's the last step in assembling a super-hitter. Counting the minors over the past few years - took walks at one point, hit HRs at one point, now hitting for average with speed. Maybe post-all-star break, he will start doing more than one at a time.

I wonder if AA may take another shot?

And when Arizona asks for Lawrie in exchange?

Or what the typical Wilner caller might suggest: Cecil, Thames and Cooper.

Sorry for the ghost post (again)

Do Bauxites listen to Wilner's post game? I find he doesn't ever engage the (few) thoughtful callers to his show, and he's rude and dismissive to the more casual fan who calls in (his bread and butter). I acknowledge he's got a tough job, but to me the show is unpleasant from start to finish.

         Thoughts on last night:    ...   tough night for Lawrie defensively.  On two occaisions he drew the "Latin ire" ... first on the popfly that Visquel caught from Bautista  (not sure why ?)  The second from Escobar for cutting in front of him. That's the fastest I've seen Escobar come in on a groundball all year . It seemed that Escobar was trying to take back the shortstop territory which has been slowly eroded or infringed upon by Lawrie's great range . Escobar in the past (pre-Lawrie) has stayed back on similar grounders and has made the play with his great arm compensating for his deeper positioning . Escobar wants to be the top shortstop in baseball and probably has noticed that these plays that a shortstop makes with some difficulty, but still makes,  are being made by his thirdbaseman, thus reducing the shine on his arm, defense and cache . On more than several occasions, Escobar has shot challenging glances Lawrie's way on similar groundballs as if saying, "that's my play, butt out, you're treading on my toes". "How can I be King of my Kingdom if you're always invading my Kingdom ?".   Lawrie's ego and flat out, all out, "raging bull in a china shop" approach, like a new hire trying to impress the boss in a union shop, maybe wearing thin .   I haven't seen the Lawrie-Bautista kibbutzing as much lately, but I suppose they each have to play their own games, so long as they continue to play as a team .         

On two occaisions he drew the "Latin ire" ... first on the popfly that Visquel caught from Bautista  (not sure why ?)

If you're referring to the high popup that Lawrie was intending to catch, but that Vizquel ended up catching, I saw the opposite of ire. I saw Vizquel and Lawrie both smiling and laughing.

Escobar has shot challenging glances Lawrie's way on similar groundballs as if saying...

Is it really wise to presume to know what the players are thinking, especially from fleeting facial expressions? Your analysis could well be biased by your own projections.

"If you're referring to the high popup that Lawrie was intending to catch, but that Vizquel ended up catching, I saw the opposite of ire. I saw Vizquel and Lawrie both smiling and laughing".      ... Chuck, I was referring to that same high popout and I too, saw what you saw with Lawrie & Visquel but if you have access to the replay check out the look that Bautista gave Lawrie and draw your own conclusions ... 

"Is it really wise to presume to know what the players are thinking, especially from fleeting facial expressions? Your analysis could well be biased by your own projections."     Chuck,  I agree with you that perhaps it is not "wise to presume to know ..." and that my "analysis could well be biased by your (my) own projections."   I hope that I'm wrong about my presumptions, perceptions and analysis and how things are working out on the playing field ...but I am seeing some skiffs of smoke  which I hope will be blown away by a long winning streak.

Are the White Sox our whipping boys?

I like what I'm seeing from Cooper.  It's not just that he's getting hits, it's his general approach at the plate.  He has a better sense of the zone than anybody not named Bautista.

Great outing from Morrow last night, and the defense, as usual, was shifted to perfection.  It seemed there were a lot of balls hit fairly hard that were right at the defense.

I agree with others re Cooper's approach. He's working counts and making good contact. I imagine he will soon be pitched a little bit differently because of his short-term success, but if he maintains the approach he's shown, his success could be sustainable. If anything, his patience is needed in the lineup when the team has guys like Arencibia, Gomes, and Lawrie hacking at everything they see.

In terms of playoff hopes and divisional competition, the Red Sox are going to have Ellsbury and Crawford healthy at some point, and the Rays will get Longoria back. If they stay within striking distance, they'll be tough to compete with for a wild card spot later in the season. 

Morrow's splits between bases-empty situations and men-on situations have historically been large and the basis of his underachieving.

Because he has pitched his poorest in the highest leverage situations, his ERAs have always exceeded his FIP. His ERA figured to only ever come in line with his FIP once he addressed his inability to pitch well with men on base. And in 2012 so far, he has.

bases-empty OPS/men-on OPS

2010: 662/802 
2011: 632/811
2012: 586/571

As per uglyone's FIP and xFIP numbers above, the FanGraphs' number crunching would suggest he is basically the same guy he's always been. Where he used to suffer bad luck, he is now enjoying good luck.

But is that the complete story? Or has he made legitimate changes that do allow him to pitch better with men on base? Is there a reason to believe that his men-on OPS will not balloon into the 800s as it has in the past? And if it does regress from 571, as it figures to, where will it land? What is his "true" ability?

Snider has played 3 or 4 games in extended over the last week.  He had 5 hits in 13 at-bats, one a double.  Extended spring games finished yesterday so he had to join one of the full season teams to get playing time.

Jake Marisnick had three at-bats listed in extended and because he is at the bottom of the list, after Snider, I assume he played yesterday or the day before too.  He might be back with Dunedin soon as well.

No Janssen in a tie game? What a pedestrian move.

To take the heat off Cordero for a minute, I was disappointed with Omar Vizquel last night.  He batted early in the game with the bases loaded and no-one out and he struckout.  Mike McCoy took the spotlight off Vizquel with his hit/O-Dog error.  Then in the ninth with a runner on third he had another terrible at-bat.  Was he trying to bunt or trying to fake the fielders?  I don't know but it looked like he didn't either, another terrible at-bat.

Vizquel is basically a slap hitter at this point in his career.  I would have preferred that Gomes bat for Vizquel rather than McCoy.

Was Janssen warming in the top of the ninth?  I imagine that he was.  If so, the approach that makes sense to me, given that Janssen had not thrown in a few days, is to have him go for the 9th (and 10th, if necessary) regardless of whether the club takes the lead in the 9th.  Frankly, if the team scored 4 runs in the top of the ninth, it probably would make sense for him to pitch anyways.

Cordero has pitched pretty well in the last few weeks. However, with 2 outs I was crossing my fingers they would bring in Perez (who was warming) to turn around Hudson. His career splits aren't a whole lot different, but I think the Jays would have had more of an advantage by putting a better pitcher on the mound.

In terms of Vizquel, his 2 at bats last night that Gerry is referring to were atrocious. If that would have been Thames or Lind, I can only imagine the vitriol...On the radio broadcast, Ashby called out the Jays' failure in executing the squeeze this year and the situations where the play has been called.

Was Janssen warming in the top of the ninth? 

Both Janssen and Cordero were warming up. Buck actually stated Farrell's obvious intention: it would be Janssen were the Jays to score in the 9th and Cordero otherwise.

to turn around Hudson

Hudson's game-winning hit notwithstanding, what on earth does the question have to be to get the answer "let's pick up a seemingly washed up second baseman who has never played third base and make him our starting third baseman".

Morel's OPS+ is 16, so plan B is Orlando Hudson?

The O-Dog looked much less than comfortable at third base last night.

The O-Dog looked much less than comfortable at third base last night.

I was amused by Bautista's line drive double in the 9th that nearly decapitated him.

• Down 1 run (1)
• Tied (2)*
• Up 1 run (1)
• Up 3 runs (3)
• Up 4 runs (4)^

^ May 28 vs Baltimore did not start the inning, two runners on

That is roughly 50% usage in non-save situations. Hardly innovative but certainly not typical either. Then again, why ruin a good narrative with facts.

The argument in the dugout was curious and I wish we had a lip reader here

Missed the last few innings of the game, can someone elaborate on the argument?  Between JP and Alvarez?  Anyone care to speculate as to cause?

Well, the "facts" are that Farrell chose not to use Janssen in a tie game in a non-save situation, after Janssen had thrown 22 pitches in the previous six days, and chose to use Cordero instead. The only logical conclusion one can draw from this fact, as has been clearly stated, is that Farrell chose to do this because he knew that, in order to win the game, the Jays would have to have a save situation and he wanted to use Janssen in that situation, as opposed to when the game was tied. As Janssen's recent usage demonstrates, and Mike Green pointed out, there is no reason to think Janssen couldn't have thrown at least two good innings.

The fact that Farrell has used Janssen in non-save situations to give him work and keep him somewhat fresh - or even used him in a non-save situation in an instance where it is clear there would never be a save situation in that particular game - is besides the point.

I honestly can't tell what your Janssen's "recent usage" comment refers to. Is Janssen being overworked - despite the fact he has thrown just 22 pitches this month - and thus needs rest? Or is he being underworked - in which case you are arguing that Farrell's failure to use him justifies his continued failure to use him?

Secondly, Farrell doesn't explain every decision about why he used which reliever in a post-game press conference. If you want to believe that the fact i can't point to a quote to suggest that he may have used Janssen on May 21 to protect a four-run lead when Janssen hadn't pitched in four days means that Farrell couldn't possibly have used him to keep him fresh and must be a creative bullpen manager...well, I can't stop you. I didn't think the idea that managers sometimes use relievers in non-defined role circumstances to give them work if they haven't pitched in several days was controversial.

And Farrell pulled the exact same trick in tonight's game. But I guess if this doesn't fit your narrative, apparently it's beside the point.

If I gave that impression, I didn't mean to. The point isn't whether Farrell uses Janssen sometimes in save situations in non "getting work" situations. Or, at least, that's not what I'm concerned with. I'm aware Farrell hasn't managed the bullpen strictly in that manner (which basically no manager does anyway).

Being a slave to the save, as far as I was concerned, is short-hand for sub-optimal deployment of the team's best reliever, seemingly influenced by the desire for that reliever to accumulate saves. When criticizing Farrell for his bullpen management over the past two games, that's what we (or I) am criticizing. I never claimed (or intended to convey) that Farrell has never used janssen in a non-save non-work situation. However, he doesn't get much credit in my book for passing that low bar, even acknowledging the pressures and expectations of the job.

You were right in that I should have acknowledged that was a possibility in the first game, even if I didn't think that was Farrell's reasoning or primary motivation, particularly given Janssen's lack of work would have probably enabled him to pitch two innings. The performance wasn't as bad Friday, but I don't think that possibility is applicable to the decision to not use Janssen again then.

And all of this should be bracketed by the fact that we have to be aware that we are evaluating these decisions on the information available to us and there may be some other reason we aren't aware of, excluding things like the idea of defined roles for pitchers for pitchers, that could have factored into Farrell's decisions in both games.