Prerecorded for this time zone.
Brandon Morrow (0-2, 5.57) pitches against Josh Stinson (0-0, 0.00) at 12:35 p.m. in the series finale.
Brandon Morrow (0-2, 5.57) pitches against Josh Stinson (0-0, 0.00) at 12:35 p.m. in the series finale.
Which Brandon Morrow shows up? The one who knows how to pitch or the one still feeling for his stuff? If the hitting fails again this will be a long game. The starters they faced are not the best ones, just the alternatives, and not that good.
Discovered this while browsing some stats: Casey Janssen's k/9 rate has gone up every year he's been in the major leagues. The biggest jump isn't even, as you might expect, when he moved to the pen; it came in 2010, his first full season after surgery. From 2010-present, he's struck out 8.9/9, and walked only 2.1.
From 2010-present, he's struck out 8.9/9, and walked only 2.1.
He's an absolute poster child for pitching. He doesn't blow anyone away or fool them with a trick pitch. He "simply" hits his spots and changes speeds. He's a joy to watch and a living testament to any pitcher, even those armed with howitzers, how to succeed.
He's an absolute poster child for pitching. He doesn't blow anyone away or fool them with a trick pitch. He "simply" hits his spots and changes speeds. He's a joy to watch and a living testament to any pitcher, even those armed with howitzers, how to succeed.
Today's lineup, against RIGHTY Stinson, has Davis and Bonifacio and their respective .300 and .313 OBPs vs right-handers batting 1st and 2nd. Not much else to say......
....except to note that it's because Lind's wife is in labor....
Melky is DHing today. One thing about last night's triple. If you had any doubt that Melky has lost almost all his speed prematurely, that was a pretty powerful exhibit. Is there literature on post-PED conditioning?
I think the fact that the Jays have the second worst ERA and second worst batting avg in the league, we should be happy that they have as many wins as they do.
The good news is that I don't think that it is NOT going to be that way at the end of the year.
The good news is that I don't think that it is NOT going to be that way at the end of the year.
That doesn't not sound like bad news to me.
That doesn't not sound like bad news to me.
Home Run; Ground Out; Double (1st non-HR hit); Strikeout; Ground Out; against Baltimore's version of Aaron Laffey.
There have been a couple of good articles about the Jays use of the waiver wire over the past few days. Shi Davidi had a piece on Sportsnet, in which Burnett discussed some of the difficulties he encountered when he had to move from Minnesota to Buffalo and then had a very short stay in that city. He didn't seem too upset by the experience, but he didn't sound thrilled.
There is also an article at Baseball America where an unnamed agent of a player the Jays claimed said AA had been very upfront with him and his client that the player may very well be placed on waivers again quickly, given the flux on the Jays 40-man roster. The impact upon his client aside, he was quite firm in saying that he finds it hard to believe that anyone the Jays claim is misled by the team in terms of Toronto's intentions for them. The BA piece suggests their activity is, as we've discussed, intended in part to field a more competitive team in Triple-A. Interestingly, it also suggests it may be related to the number of scouts the Jays carry, as scouts are able to have a longer and more thorough look at these sorts of players, which I hadn't thought about.
Yay, Loup came up short again and Morrow is still mediocre. And all we can do is hit home runs, since we can't score runs any other way it seems.
Morrow was fine for 6 innings. He had thrown over 100 pitches. Gibbons made a judgment call that it was worth the effort to try and stretch him further. You can certainly question that decision, but there are more than game-level factors involved in that decision.
Even before the 7th he had 4 Ks and 2 BBs, which for a pitcher of his calibre is pretty poor. His stuff is much better than that, and yet now he's trying to be a nibbler and contact pitcher.
Riddle me this, Batman. If Darren Oliver is able to come on for a second inning in the ninth at 5-5, why wouldn't you bring him on in the 7th with a 5-2 lead instead of Loup? Janssen is available to pitch the ninth...
instead of Loup?
I didn't mind Loup coming in, but I didn't like him staying in to pitch to Machado. Guys like Loup who throw from extreme arm angles are always much more effective when they have the platoon advantage. (It's early in the year, and his splits don't indicate it yet - but trust me. They will.) He'd just given up a hit to a LH batter, which is a strong indicator to me that this wasn't his day.
Oh well. It's a new manager. They always have to see these guys for themselves.
I didn't mind Loup coming in, but I didn't like him staying in to pitch to Machado. Guys like Loup who throw from extreme arm angles are always much more effective when they have the platoon advantage. (It's early in the year, and his splits don't indicate it yet - but trust me. They will.) He'd just given up a hit to a LH batter, which is a strong indicator to me that this wasn't his day.
Oh well. It's a new manager. They always have to see these guys for themselves.
In 9.2 innings this series vs the Baltimore bullpen, the Jays have a grand total of 2 singles, both by Izturis.
"....If Darren Oliver is able to come on for a second inning in the ninth...."
Oliver threw only 6 pitches in the 8th inning. Made sense to leave him in for a batter or two in the 9th inning, and then for the full inning when he continued to be efficient. But that doesn't mean that he could have pitched the 7th and 8th innings just as easily in a different game situation when the Orioles were aggressively trying to catch up from a 2-run deficit, with a runner in scoring position.
Personally I think Gibbons left Morrow in the game a little too long. But it was defensible to opt for Loup first, given Oliver's usual role as an 8th-inning guy, and given the fact that Loup has been a fairly effective reliever in his major-league career, notwithstanding a higher WHIP this season.
I can see a case for Janssen over Rogers in the 10th inning, however.
Oliver threw only 6 pitches in the 8th inning. Made sense to leave him in for a batter or two in the 9th inning, and then for the full inning when he continued to be efficient. But that doesn't mean that he could have pitched the 7th and 8th innings just as easily in a different game situation when the Orioles were aggressively trying to catch up from a 2-run deficit, with a runner in scoring position.
Personally I think Gibbons left Morrow in the game a little too long. But it was defensible to opt for Loup first, given Oliver's usual role as an 8th-inning guy, and given the fact that Loup has been a fairly effective reliever in his major-league career, notwithstanding a higher WHIP this season.
I can see a case for Janssen over Rogers in the 10th inning, however.
Time to send Loup down, too many people are doing better than they should against him. How bad must he be to be sent down?
I am amazed at how many average/replacement value pitchers are dominating this team. It doesn't help any more to get base runners as they are regularly stranded. If this Team doesn't hit HRs, they don't win.
I am amazed at how many average/replacement value pitchers are dominating this team. It doesn't help any more to get base runners as they are regularly stranded. If this Team doesn't hit HRs, they don't win.
Chuck has been musing about the team's curious inability to hit singles. The team's BABIP of .264 is pretty comparable to Tampa's .259 with the shared attributes of high pop-up %, low line-drive % and low IF hit rate. Here's the chart.
You just knew that Bonifacio wouldn't be attempting to steal 2nd with Bautista and Encarnacion to follow notwithstanding that there were 2 out and it's an extra-inning game. A home run is perceived to be as likely or more likely than a single.
You just knew that Bonifacio wouldn't be attempting to steal 2nd with Bautista and Encarnacion to follow notwithstanding that there were 2 out and it's an extra-inning game. A home run is perceived to be as likely or more likely than a single.
Any word on Janssen? He would have been a good choice, I would have thought, to face the heart of the order in the 10th inning. Is he assisting with the delivery of baby Lind?
A nice time for Rajai's best throw of the season, by far.
Any word on Janssen?
Slave to the Save. They're on the road.
And Rajai Davis comes up with one of his totally random big defensive plays at a particularly opportune moment.
Slave to the Save. They're on the road.
And Rajai Davis comes up with one of his totally random big defensive plays at a particularly opportune moment.
And Rajai Davis comes up with one of his totally random big defensive plays at a particularly opportune moment
Great news, if only to deny the Orioles another dreaded one-run win. Mr. Tabler made a meal of this the other day, attributing their success in this arena to professionalism, healthy gums, knowing how to win, matching socks, having the right attitude, firm daily bowel movements and being the right type of players. Any less fuel for that particular fire would be a good thing.
Great news, if only to deny the Orioles another dreaded one-run win. Mr. Tabler made a meal of this the other day, attributing their success in this arena to professionalism, healthy gums, knowing how to win, matching socks, having the right attitude, firm daily bowel movements and being the right type of players. Any less fuel for that particular fire would be a good thing.
...and then it takes four acts for the team to score a run. Maybe there is some kind of lesson in that.
How bad must he be to be sent down?
I guess a 1.80 ERA doesn't count for as much as it used to.
Totally forgot it was an afternoon game. Interesting reading the comments here though to get an idea of the emotions it generated. I was certain it was a loss until I went to the Jays site.
Morrow - 6 1/3 IP, 3 hits, 3 BB, 4 K, 4 runs - poor luck when you allow 6 baserunners and 4 runs score. The errors didn't help I'm sure. Basically he was left in one inning too long. Might be Gibbons doing a Gaston - namely pushing players early to see what they can/cannot do, hoping in a playoff situation he can adjust then based on info gained as early as now.
Loup - 2 hits, 2 outs, 1 run allowed plus one of Morrow's. Didn't have it today but had enough to keep the game from getting out of hand (ie: into a loss situation).
Oliver - 1 hit, 1 K over 2 IP. Nice.
Rogers - 1 inning, 2 hits, 0 runs. Caused some headaches but was OK
Janssen - 1 inning 2 K's - sweet.
Hitter notes: Kawasaki comes in late and gets a hit - gotta love it. JPA continues to hit well with 3 more hits including a HR and a double. The heart of the order, Bautista/Encarnacion/Cabrera continue to struggle going a collective 2-13 with 2 walks but those 2 hits were home runs at least (game line = 154/267/615 = 882 OPS). Rasmus 0-3 with 2 K's...sigh. Only Davis left more than 1 runner on without advancing them - he left 5 on while hitting in the leadoff slot, go figure.
Interesting note: Under 15k at the game in Baltimore - before this game they were up 5k per game while the Jays are up 7.8k despite the O's making the playoffs last year and the Jays not.
Morrow - 6 1/3 IP, 3 hits, 3 BB, 4 K, 4 runs - poor luck when you allow 6 baserunners and 4 runs score. The errors didn't help I'm sure. Basically he was left in one inning too long. Might be Gibbons doing a Gaston - namely pushing players early to see what they can/cannot do, hoping in a playoff situation he can adjust then based on info gained as early as now.
Loup - 2 hits, 2 outs, 1 run allowed plus one of Morrow's. Didn't have it today but had enough to keep the game from getting out of hand (ie: into a loss situation).
Oliver - 1 hit, 1 K over 2 IP. Nice.
Rogers - 1 inning, 2 hits, 0 runs. Caused some headaches but was OK
Janssen - 1 inning 2 K's - sweet.
Hitter notes: Kawasaki comes in late and gets a hit - gotta love it. JPA continues to hit well with 3 more hits including a HR and a double. The heart of the order, Bautista/Encarnacion/Cabrera continue to struggle going a collective 2-13 with 2 walks but those 2 hits were home runs at least (game line = 154/267/615 = 882 OPS). Rasmus 0-3 with 2 K's...sigh. Only Davis left more than 1 runner on without advancing them - he left 5 on while hitting in the leadoff slot, go figure.
Interesting note: Under 15k at the game in Baltimore - before this game they were up 5k per game while the Jays are up 7.8k despite the O's making the playoffs last year and the Jays not.
Hardy's single was one of those plays to which "In play, out(s)" doesn't quite do justice...
I've never been so happy to see the Jays head to the Bronx.
I've never been so happy to see the Jays head to the Bronx.
Basically he was left in one inning too long. Might be Gibbons doing a Gaston - namely pushing players early to see what they can/cannot do, hoping in a playoff situation he can adjust then based on info gained as early as now.
I don't fault Gibbons for this decision at all. It's time to get these starting pitchers into the 7th inning. Heading into the 7th, Morrow had been pitching well, his pitch count was under 100 and he was facing the bottom of the order. And had Loup not been pumelled, Morrow's line would have been just fine.
Under 15k at the game in Baltimore
As far as the cameraman was concerned, the attendance was exactly one, namely an attractive young mother who found more screen time than most of the players.
I don't fault Gibbons for this decision at all. It's time to get these starting pitchers into the 7th inning. Heading into the 7th, Morrow had been pitching well, his pitch count was under 100 and he was facing the bottom of the order. And had Loup not been pumelled, Morrow's line would have been just fine.
Under 15k at the game in Baltimore
As far as the cameraman was concerned, the attendance was exactly one, namely an attractive young mother who found more screen time than most of the players.
As far as the cameraman was concerned, the attendance was exactly one, namely an attractive young mother who found more screen time than most of the players.
And here we have yet another way Gameday fails to provide a real feel for the game.
Not counting today's game, batters were hitting 182/280/182 against Loup with the bases empty, and 375/389/500 with men on.
That's almost certainly a freakish sample size issue - he had no such problems last year - but at the moment, he's not exactly the best bet for bailing a starter out.
That's almost certainly a freakish sample size issue - he had no such problems last year - but at the moment, he's not exactly the best bet for bailing a starter out.
The Jays need to tighten up the D. This will help the starting pitchers make it through seven, which in turn will help avoid bullpen burnout.
Today (24th), Loup comes into a 5-3 game with 1 out and a runners on second. He gets an out then allows the runner to score, making it a 5-4 game. With 2 outs, and a runner on 1st, Stolen Base, then a triple and a 5-5 game before a ground out ends the inning.
Monday (22nd), in the 9th, 1-1 tie, HBP, Sac Bunt, pops out, error, Game winning single with two out. He had a second chance for the third out.
Saturday (20th), in the 11th, his second inning of work, single, single, sac bunt with throwing error, game over. Can't get an out?
Thursday (18th), in the 8th, 1 out, and runner on first, flied out, run scoring double, ground out.
And who says ERA matters? Allowed runs matter more. Loup is having difficulty getting that last out or limiting the damage lately. He's lost two games, and caused uneccesary extra innings in a third. And someone thinks a 1.80 ERA is good? More fool him. Do I want him sent down? Yes, he's not getting better.
Well, being sent down doesn't seem particularly fair to Loup, especially with the currently-mediocre starting staff and guys like Axford, Marmol and Putz blowing saves left-and-right.
I would agree with Richard S.S., however, that Loup be re-assigned to less of a high-leverage role -- maybe replace him with Delabar (if he hasn't been replaced by him already) and Cecil -- and then be eased back into more high leverage situations that the Olivers and Janssens of the world have become so accommodated to handling.
I would agree with Richard S.S., however, that Loup be re-assigned to less of a high-leverage role -- maybe replace him with Delabar (if he hasn't been replaced by him already) and Cecil -- and then be eased back into more high leverage situations that the Olivers and Janssens of the world have become so accommodated to handling.
I liked Gibbons' decision to leave Morrow in. It's true he had just thrown 4 straight balls, but with a 5-2 lead he had the luxury of trying to see if he could get Brandon to leave his start on a high note and perhaps even finish the inning. Others have mentioned the long term benefit of stretching him out a bit more, and the pitch that was driven for an RBI double really wasn't all that bad.
"Casey Janssen isn't pitching at 100%, even though his results are perfect." - @TSNScottyMac
That's why you don't see Janssen coming into tie games on the road until needed.
"Casey Janssen isn't pitching at 100%, even though his results are perfect." - @TSNScottyMac
That's why you don't see Janssen coming into tie games on the road until needed.
On the Loup question: I think, to some extent, Gibbons is trying to give his better pitchers an opportunity to revert to their 2012 levels of excellence, by showing faith in them and allowing them to keep working regularly. Most of them weren't in top form at the start of the season, but he's been patient. His starters have mostly improved since their early outings of the season. And a patient approach has been successful with his veteran relievers too. A couple weeks ago, we might have been impatient with Oliver or Rogers. On April 14, Oliver had an ERA of 6.23. Since then, he hasn't allowed a run in 4.2 innings, and he clearly seems to be returning to form. In the same vein, Rogers had an ERA of 4.50 on April 11, and has only allowed 1 run in 6.1 innings since then. It might be a continuation of spring training for them -- they are still working to get into peak season performance.
I assume that Gibbons is trying to do the same thing with Loup -- giving him opportunities like today to try to return to peak performance. Unfortunately it hasn't worked so well with Loup so far -- he hasn't yet returned to his 2012 form. But there's nothing wrong with Gibbons having faith in his top relievers (everyone except the 7th man, I guess). Loup will be given more opportunities, although perhaps not in quite so many high-leverage situations.
I assume that Gibbons is trying to do the same thing with Loup -- giving him opportunities like today to try to return to peak performance. Unfortunately it hasn't worked so well with Loup so far -- he hasn't yet returned to his 2012 form. But there's nothing wrong with Gibbons having faith in his top relievers (everyone except the 7th man, I guess). Loup will be given more opportunities, although perhaps not in quite so many high-leverage situations.
And, I might add, the alternatives in the minor-league bullpens aren't very attractive, with the possible exception of Lincoln, who might need a bit more time in the minors to get over whatever problems he seemed to be encountering in the pre-season and the early days of the regular season. I don't see anyone who would clearly be better than Loup.
I'm not sure why you would ever change a middle reliever's job description three weeks in, unless you had compelling subjective evidence that something was wrong. Loup is still my medium-leverage guy that I use for LH-heavy stretches of the opposing lineup. I don't especially care about his performance stats, and I certainly don't give a damn about his ERA.
Well, it frickin well wasn't easy, but they did actually win today somehow. I keep thinking every win is the one that will get them going onto a good little run.
Lawrie worries me. He’s the most un-still batter I’ve seen in a *very* long while. Fidget, fidget, fidget. Always something moving compulsively--quickly, jerkily, violently. The feet; especially the bat. More than once I’ve seen him have to take a called strike because he’s still not finished waving the bat around. I was a great admirer of Lawrie when he first arrived. But I don’t have confidence in him at the plate anymore. And his Mr. Intensity act has worn very thin. Especially to the umps. When he scored that run in the Yankees’ game, and launched into his ferocious fist-pumping show, I was reminded of the remark (can’t remember who said it), “Act like you’ve done it before.”
And jeez, I do miss Brian Butterfield.
And jeez, I do miss Brian Butterfield.
Chuck has been musing about the team's curious inability to hit singles.
My hypothesis is that the Jays' hitters have been trying to do too much at the plate: "Must. Hit. Home. Run. Now." This would explain why most of the hits have been bombs - sometimes, they connect with what they're swinging hard at.
Slave to the Save. They're on the road.
I've never really been troubled by this. The closer usually only goes one inning anyway, and this is a situation where a win almost certainly will require a save of a one-run lead. And it's a horrible bummer to score 1 in the top of an extra inning and give up 2 in the bottom. Yay, we're going to win... cue sound of balloon deflating.
I think, to some extent, Gibbons is trying to give his better pitchers an opportunity to revert to their 2012 levels of excellence, by showing faith in them and allowing them to keep working regularly.
I like the idea of figuring out a bullpen structure and just sticking with it for a while unless something drastic happens. Anything else smacks of panic.
Please win. That is all.
Oh boy, I feel your pain. This has been a tough April (not helped by the weather, which seems to be locked in the "March" setting). All the shiny new ballplayers gave some of us (i.e. me) the impression that 2013 would be a pleasant coast to victory. As you may have noticed, it hasn't been.
The problem is that pain is cumulative. Mediocre season has followed mediocre season, down through the years. The fact that the Jays have a fan base at all shows that Toronto fans are loyal and persistent (and, I suppose, that the Jays' marketing machine is very clever).
My hypothesis is that the Jays' hitters have been trying to do too much at the plate: "Must. Hit. Home. Run. Now." This would explain why most of the hits have been bombs - sometimes, they connect with what they're swinging hard at.
Slave to the Save. They're on the road.
I've never really been troubled by this. The closer usually only goes one inning anyway, and this is a situation where a win almost certainly will require a save of a one-run lead. And it's a horrible bummer to score 1 in the top of an extra inning and give up 2 in the bottom. Yay, we're going to win... cue sound of balloon deflating.
I think, to some extent, Gibbons is trying to give his better pitchers an opportunity to revert to their 2012 levels of excellence, by showing faith in them and allowing them to keep working regularly.
I like the idea of figuring out a bullpen structure and just sticking with it for a while unless something drastic happens. Anything else smacks of panic.
Please win. That is all.
Oh boy, I feel your pain. This has been a tough April (not helped by the weather, which seems to be locked in the "March" setting). All the shiny new ballplayers gave some of us (i.e. me) the impression that 2013 would be a pleasant coast to victory. As you may have noticed, it hasn't been.
The problem is that pain is cumulative. Mediocre season has followed mediocre season, down through the years. The fact that the Jays have a fan base at all shows that Toronto fans are loyal and persistent (and, I suppose, that the Jays' marketing machine is very clever).
What is the division of roles in the bullpen, anyway?
Janssen- closer every other day. Oliver- closer when Janssen not available? Loup- medium-leverage LH relief with forays into long relief. Delabar- medium to high leverage work every other day. Cecil and Rogers- low to medium leverage work. The hordes- low leverage work. It sort of makes sense to pair Delabar and Rogers with each going 1-2 innings on days the other cannot go.
If you're in a medium leverage situation going to the seventh inning with the starter coming out, everybody is equally and well rested and you're facing L/R/L/R/L, who do you send out there? My understanding is that the current plan would be Loup.
Janssen- closer every other day. Oliver- closer when Janssen not available? Loup- medium-leverage LH relief with forays into long relief. Delabar- medium to high leverage work every other day. Cecil and Rogers- low to medium leverage work. The hordes- low leverage work. It sort of makes sense to pair Delabar and Rogers with each going 1-2 innings on days the other cannot go.
If you're in a medium leverage situation going to the seventh inning with the starter coming out, everybody is equally and well rested and you're facing L/R/L/R/L, who do you send out there? My understanding is that the current plan would be Loup.
Loup doesn't need to be sent down to AAA. He does need to be reassigned in the bullpen though. He doesn't know how to pitch, he only throws. The last three appearances I've watched him come in and throw strikes and only strikes. He throws pitches in the strike zone and thinks that it means he will get out of it with the game on the line. Sorry but that doesn't work unless you're throwing 97 with pin point location like Kimbrel or Papelbon. Loup needs to learn to make batters chase and throw the odd ball outside of the batters strike zone. A perfect example is Andrew Bailey today against the A's - solid pitching to pick up the save.
In the rare case where everyone's equally rested, I think there are several right answers. Who are the hitters? Choo Cozart Votto Phillips Bruce and I'm getting Loup up, but if the righties are the scarier bats, maybe Delabar. Loup has a better GB rate. Delabar's got homer issues but smaller splits.
Is anyone wondering if last year's Washington Nationals, while winning 98 games, ever have a stretch when they won just 8 of 21 games?
Because they did, from April 26 through May 15.
Because they did, from April 26 through May 15.
"Slave to the Save. They're on the road."
I recall liberal use of BJ Ryan from 2006-2008 both on the road and at home during Gibby's first tenure. I know he had plenty of four out saves, but I think he came into tie games on the road too...I could be wrong.
I recall liberal use of BJ Ryan from 2006-2008 both on the road and at home during Gibby's first tenure. I know he had plenty of four out saves, but I think he came into tie games on the road too...I could be wrong.
Because they did, from April 26 through May 15.
Of course, they also went 14-4 to open the season, making them 22-14 after their May 15th loss.
Another memory: the 2011 Red Sox. They opened the season 2-10, then proceeded to play great baseball for four months. Unfortunately (for them), they swooned big-time in September, perhaps having consumed too much beer and chicken, and finished with 90 wins, a game behind the Rays for the final playoff spot in the AL. April games count.
Of course, they also went 14-4 to open the season, making them 22-14 after their May 15th loss.
Another memory: the 2011 Red Sox. They opened the season 2-10, then proceeded to play great baseball for four months. Unfortunately (for them), they swooned big-time in September, perhaps having consumed too much beer and chicken, and finished with 90 wins, a game behind the Rays for the final playoff spot in the AL. April games count.
I think [Ryan} came into tie games on the road too...
Ryan came into a tie game on the road as a Blue Jay exactly four times. Twice for Gibbons: August 30 2006 at Cleveland (one out bases loaded, bottom of the 9th. Ryan came in, pitched out of the jam, then got beat in the 10th.) Second time was May 12 2008 Ryan replaced Marcum to start the 9th in a 0-0 game and picked up the win when Toronto scored in the 10th.
And twice for Cito Gaston: June 20 2008 (Gaston's first game back) and again exactly one year later in Washington.
Ryan came into a tie game on the road as a Blue Jay exactly four times. Twice for Gibbons: August 30 2006 at Cleveland (one out bases loaded, bottom of the 9th. Ryan came in, pitched out of the jam, then got beat in the 10th.) Second time was May 12 2008 Ryan replaced Marcum to start the 9th in a 0-0 game and picked up the win when Toronto scored in the 10th.
And twice for Cito Gaston: June 20 2008 (Gaston's first game back) and again exactly one year later in Washington.
Yes, that's nice for Washington. Toronto needs to do something soon. They have a huge two game winning streak, longer and more often would be nice. Toronto has won one series, tied one and lost five, winning more series would be nice.
Honourable mention goes to Bonifacio's catch in CF.
If Lind isn't ready to join the team in New York we may see Negrych's hot bat added to the roster for a few days.
If Lind isn't ready to join the team in New York we may see Negrych's hot bat added to the roster for a few days.
Aaron Laffey finished with 100.2 innings of 4.56era with a 1.36whip in the AL East last year. I'm not sure how he finished with that decent a line but he's a good guy to have at the back of the bullpen and might be the new #6 starter. On April 16th he threw 4 innings of 2 run ball for the Mets in a doubleheader, and has outings of 90 and 77 pitches so he should already be fairly stretched out. Hopefully he won't be needed but I like having him around more than Ramon Ortiz.
It's true that April games count, but speaking of the Nationals they're 10-11 now.
The last three appearances I've watched him come in and throw strikes and only strikes. He throws pitches in the strike zone and thinks that it means he will get out of it with the game on the line.
While it's early to make judgements and very hard to know of whether these trends are small sample sizes or a sign of a more permanent change, some of Loup's stats suggest this is indeed the case. Loup's contact percentage, both in terms of total pitches and on balls inside the strike zone, is up and his missed strike percentage on balls is the strike zone is down and well below major league average. The one wrinkle to this is that his first strike percentage is down at 53% and Loup is getting swings at balls outside the strike zone about 1/5th of the time. He's falling behind hitters more and then he's forced to come into the strike zone. He's throwing more fastballs, presumably as he has the most confidence he can throw that pitch for a strike, and batters are ready for it and making better and more consistent contact.
With some small exceptions, I wouldn't change the role I had planned for Loup either if I was Jays management (just as I wouldn't change Oliver's role based on his underperformance from 2012 so far).
This talk about roles got me thinking about leverage and how much did the pitchers help/hurt the team given the situation. IE: are the right guys being put into the right situations. Listing all guys with 5+ appearances, not counting todays game.
For this I'm using High leverage: 1.50 aLI, Medium 0.90 to 1.49, Low below 0.90
WPA = Win Percentage Added, positive = you helped the team, negative = you hurt it
For this I'm using High leverage: 1.50 aLI, Medium 0.90 to 1.49, Low below 0.90
WPA = Win Percentage Added, positive = you helped the team, negative = you hurt it
- Casey Janssen: 4 times high, 3 medium, positive WPA every time. Top 16.4%, lowest 7.5% (twice, 2 run leads he saved)
- Steve Delabar: 5 times high, 5 times low (one with a 0.00 aLI). Positive WPA 7 times, once a 0, twice negative. Top 25.2% (1 on, none out in a tie game, threw 2 shutout innings), worst -29.1% (came in no one on, tie game, left bases loaded down by 1)
- Brett Cecil: 4 high, 1 medium, 5 low (one with a 0.00 aLI). Positive WPA 8 times, 0 once, 1 negative. Top 10.4%, worst -3.7% (came in down 5, left down 6)
- Esmil Rogers: 2 high, 1 medium, 7 low. Positive WPA 7 times, negative 3 times. Best 11.4%, worst -24.0% (came in tie game, left losing)
- Aaron Loup: 3 high (one over 3), 2 medium, 4 low. Positive WPA 5 times, 0 once, negative 3 times - all his high leverage games. Best 7.9%, worst -36.2% (tie game b9th, lost game) plus another -30.8% (xtras tied, left down 2)
- Darren Oliver: 4 high, 2 medium, 3 low. Positive WPA 5 times, negative 4 times. Best 9.1%, worst -36.4% (b9th tie, lost game)
- Sergio Santos: 1 high, 1 medium, 3 low. Positive WPA 4 times, negative 1 time. Best 4.5%, worst -29.7% (11th inning tie, left down 1)
So Janssen has been 'wow' so far, Cecil has also been everything you can dream of. Rogers solid. Loup should not be brought in during high pressure situations for awhile though, and Oliver should be watched closely as his 4 high pressure were 2 negative and 2 barely positive (allowed an inherited runner to score each time, reducing leads but not losing them). Santos we'll see if/when he comes back. The others have no more than 2 appearances each with a group ERA of 8.44 (lowest is 5.40).
Thus the ideal setup is Janssen closing, Cecil & Delabar splitting the setup role with Rogers mixed in. Oliver is next in line with Loup used only in mid to low pressure situations for awhile. Today's game saw Loup blow a lead, Oliver do well in a tie game situation, as did Rogers with Janssen continuing his great season. Cecil just pitched last night and in 3 of the last 5, Delabar had 33 pitches 2 days ago so having today off made a lot of sense. Laffey would've been the only guy left if Janssen didn't hold the lead. So Oliver is slowly working back to being himself, while the rest is just continuing what we see above.
It does seem a little odd to have four LHP in the bullpen. There are still more RH batters in the league. It can't be to deal with LH pinch hitters seeing as how pinch hitting is vanishing from the game. I guess these are just the seven best guys available and I suppose that's actually the best reason of all.
To beat once more on my particular drum - who are the hitters who have hurt Loup his last few times out? Flowers, Wells, Cervelli, Markakis, and Machado. Four of the five are RH batters. That's the way it always works with a pitcher with this type of delivery. I'll happily use Loup against any LH batter in any situation, but if the game is on the line and a RH batter is up, I want someone else.
To beat once more on my particular drum - who are the hitters who have hurt Loup his last few times out? Flowers, Wells, Cervelli, Markakis, and Machado. Four of the five are RH batters. That's the way it always works with a pitcher with this type of delivery. I'll happily use Loup against any LH batter in any situation, but if the game is on the line and a RH batter is up, I want someone else.
Is anyone wondering if last year's Washington Nationals, while winning 98 games, ever have a stretch when they won just 8 of 21 games?
Well they did have 140+ 21 game stretches. The 2013 BJ's have now had two
Since the first full wild card season, 1996, fifty teams have started 8-13. Of these, five have exceeded 90 wins the best record being the 94 of the 2007 Yankees. The average has been 76.
What's interesting about this discussion about leverage and pitchers performing well in certain situations and not others (I.e., in a blow-out or In a close game), is how unproblematic it seems to be. But if you were to do a study of hitters clutchness you would be roundly mocked and derided by the Keith Laws of the world. Once you admit of a clutchness element for hitters, RBIs start to not look quite as silly as a means of quantifying value.
"....That's the way it always works with a pitcher with this type of delivery..."
Yes, but last year Loup held RHB to an OPS of just .638. This year RHB are doing much better against him, with a .729 OPS. It's still a small sample, so we can hope that he returns to his 2012 numbers against RHB but it's also possible that the league is adjusting to him.
Yes, but last year Loup held RHB to an OPS of just .638. This year RHB are doing much better against him, with a .729 OPS. It's still a small sample, so we can hope that he returns to his 2012 numbers against RHB but it's also possible that the league is adjusting to him.
"Yes, but last year Loup held RHB to an OPS of just .638"
... in 57 PA. The jury is still out, and precedent says it's very unlikely the verdict will be in favour of Loup vs RHB.
... in 57 PA. The jury is still out, and precedent says it's very unlikely the verdict will be in favour of Loup vs RHB.
I concur with 92-93 about Aaron Laffey. He is definitely a plausible #6 starter. I'd like to see him get some longer stints in the next couple of weeks.
If you are going to carry four LH relievers in the pen (and you have two left-handed starters in the rotation), it probably does make sense to use one as a LOOGY or a TWOGY, at least for the time being, and use Rogers and Delabar in longer stints. So, if Josh Johnson (say) goes six innings in a close game, and you are facing L/L/R/R/L/R, you bring in your designated LOOGY (Loup or Cecil) to face the first two batters and then move to Rogers or Delabar to finish the 7th and pitch the 8th and maybe the ninth depending on the situation.
If you are going to carry four LH relievers in the pen (and you have two left-handed starters in the rotation), it probably does make sense to use one as a LOOGY or a TWOGY, at least for the time being, and use Rogers and Delabar in longer stints. So, if Josh Johnson (say) goes six innings in a close game, and you are facing L/L/R/R/L/R, you bring in your designated LOOGY (Loup or Cecil) to face the first two batters and then move to Rogers or Delabar to finish the 7th and pitch the 8th and maybe the ninth depending on the situation.
I agree that Laffey is a better 6th starter than the names we were bandying about earlier (Batista, Bush, Oritz etc). One problem is that he presumably loses his bullpen job when Santos comes back. Which could make it difficult for the Jays to keep him around as their 6th starter. Let me pose two questions, one for information, and one for opinion:
1) presumably Laffey is out of options, but he's also on a minor-league contract (as far as I can figure out from his Mets deal). Can the Jays outright him to Buffalo when Santos comes back, or do they have to expose him to waivers again?
2) for those Bauxites who hate the 8-man bullpen but also like to have a good 6th starter option on the roster: are you willing to go with an 8-man pen if it's the only way to avoid losing Laffey? Or do you prefer to keep the 7-man pen, even if it means losing Laffey and reverting to Bush/Batista/Ortiz as the 6th starter?
1) presumably Laffey is out of options, but he's also on a minor-league contract (as far as I can figure out from his Mets deal). Can the Jays outright him to Buffalo when Santos comes back, or do they have to expose him to waivers again?
2) for those Bauxites who hate the 8-man bullpen but also like to have a good 6th starter option on the roster: are you willing to go with an 8-man pen if it's the only way to avoid losing Laffey? Or do you prefer to keep the 7-man pen, even if it means losing Laffey and reverting to Bush/Batista/Ortiz as the 6th starter?
I agree with you reasoning, Mike, but Delabar may not be suited to the role. His career is still young, but:
vs RHB, 202 PA: .227 / .328 / .465
vs LHB, 155 PA: .159 / .265 / .273
Rogers for his career has been lousy against all comers. Last year he had 26 bad innings in Colorado and 53 good ones in Cleveland. Overall he was still lousy against RHB (.817 OPS in 174 PA) but good against LHB (.676, also 174 PA).
Oliver is actually the guy who is best suited to the "righty" role, he's held RHB to a .628 OPS over the last 3 seasons (332 AB).
vs RHB, 202 PA: .227 / .328 / .465
vs LHB, 155 PA: .159 / .265 / .273
Rogers for his career has been lousy against all comers. Last year he had 26 bad innings in Colorado and 53 good ones in Cleveland. Overall he was still lousy against RHB (.817 OPS in 174 PA) but good against LHB (.676, also 174 PA).
Oliver is actually the guy who is best suited to the "righty" role, he's held RHB to a .628 OPS over the last 3 seasons (332 AB).
RBIs start to not look quite as silly as a means of quantifying value.
They still look silly. They're about opportunity, rather than performance. I think there are two reasons RBIs have been taken so seriously for so long. There's always the natural inclination to focus on the payoff - the act that brings the runner home. There;s an assumption that you generally always enough men on base, so the key thing is getting those men across the plate. But the relation between the number of men you have on base and the number of runners who cross the plate is not a parallel line. If you have 8 base runners in a game, you might score run. But if you increase that by 50 percent (twelve base runners), you probably score three times as many runs. And if you have twice as many men on base (16 baserunners), you may score six times as many runs. And so on and so forth.
That said, I'd take a pitcher (or hitter's) performance in high leverage situations with something of a grain of salt. You have to believe in clutch performance, but demonstrating the existence of clutch ability is like seeking the Loch Ness Monster or something..
They still look silly. They're about opportunity, rather than performance. I think there are two reasons RBIs have been taken so seriously for so long. There's always the natural inclination to focus on the payoff - the act that brings the runner home. There;s an assumption that you generally always enough men on base, so the key thing is getting those men across the plate. But the relation between the number of men you have on base and the number of runners who cross the plate is not a parallel line. If you have 8 base runners in a game, you might score run. But if you increase that by 50 percent (twelve base runners), you probably score three times as many runs. And if you have twice as many men on base (16 baserunners), you may score six times as many runs. And so on and so forth.
That said, I'd take a pitcher (or hitter's) performance in high leverage situations with something of a grain of salt. You have to believe in clutch performance, but demonstrating the existence of clutch ability is like seeking the Loch Ness Monster or something..
I don't know what to make of Oliver, both in terms of rate performance and durability within a game, in light of his age. Perhaps it is best to think of Oliver and Delabar as the higher leverage relievers and not used with platoon issues mostly at top of mind (with Delabar perhaps in for a little longer than Oliver on average), and to think of Rogers as a RH middle inning guy.
I have a sneaking feeling that Cecil will be getting the higher leverage work by the end of the season, but there is no harm at all in letting that play out organically.
I have a sneaking feeling that Cecil will be getting the higher leverage work by the end of the season, but there is no harm at all in letting that play out organically.
So you pick up Aaron Laffey, a long man, and then replace Lind on the roster with Brad Lincoln?
Adam Lind goes on Paternity List, Brad Lincoln recalled. Does Loup go down when Lind returns?
Richard actually raises an interesting point. Loup, unlike Laffey, does have options.
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that Laffey was brought in solely for the purpose of a spot start in the event that Mr Dickey's back/neck problems aren't quite right come his next turn?
I wonder who takes on the left-handed part of the DH role during Lind's absence. I suppose that it could be Bonifacio.
"They still look silly. They're about opportunity, rather than performance."
I've heard this a lot. RBIs are indeed about opportunity, but they are not just about opportunity.
If you accept that certain pitchers are better at dealing with pressure (high leverage) situations than others, then shouldn't it follow that some batters are better than others at hitting in high leverage situations?
If you disagree it strikes me that some sort of explanation is required. You could reject the premise that leverage has anything to do with pitcher performance. Or you could reject the claim that pitching and batting are analagous.
But if certain batters are better than others at rising to the occasion, you would expect those batters to come through more often than others when runners are on base. All things being equal (which they are not, as you point out Magpie) those players will accrue more RBIs than your average player.
My point is not realy to argue for one or the other. I suspect though, that if you reject clutchness for hitters, you also have to reject it for pitchers.
I've heard this a lot. RBIs are indeed about opportunity, but they are not just about opportunity.
If you accept that certain pitchers are better at dealing with pressure (high leverage) situations than others, then shouldn't it follow that some batters are better than others at hitting in high leverage situations?
If you disagree it strikes me that some sort of explanation is required. You could reject the premise that leverage has anything to do with pitcher performance. Or you could reject the claim that pitching and batting are analagous.
But if certain batters are better than others at rising to the occasion, you would expect those batters to come through more often than others when runners are on base. All things being equal (which they are not, as you point out Magpie) those players will accrue more RBIs than your average player.
My point is not realy to argue for one or the other. I suspect though, that if you reject clutchness for hitters, you also have to reject it for pitchers.
Pitchers are generally used in higher leverage situations because they are better, not because they are clutchy. Managers do not much influence at all on the leverage of the situation that a particular batter has.
It is a wonder that RBIs are still considered somehow more significant than runs scored. When did you last hear someone say, "Lind performed very well in the clutch today, drawing two leadoff walks and coming around to score each time."?
It is a wonder that RBIs are still considered somehow more significant than runs scored. When did you last hear someone say, "Lind performed very well in the clutch today, drawing two leadoff walks and coming around to score each time."?
"Pitchers are generally used in higher leverage situations because they are better, not because they are clutchy."
I'm not sure that's right as a matter of how pitchers are generally used. I've heard lots of managers talk about the need for proven closers, and have seen many closers stay in their role even though there is a much better alternative within the same bullpen. But maybe that's why you used the word generally.
As I understand John's post below, it was weighted performance on the basis of how close the games were. Implicit in that weighting is the assumption that players have some control over how they perform in close games as opposed to blowouts, and that some players can do it, and some can't.
If the question is simply "who is the better pitcher?, then any decision about who should pitch in high leverage situations is an easy one -- the better one (however you wwant to measure that).
I'm not sure that's right as a matter of how pitchers are generally used. I've heard lots of managers talk about the need for proven closers, and have seen many closers stay in their role even though there is a much better alternative within the same bullpen. But maybe that's why you used the word generally.
As I understand John's post below, it was weighted performance on the basis of how close the games were. Implicit in that weighting is the assumption that players have some control over how they perform in close games as opposed to blowouts, and that some players can do it, and some can't.
If the question is simply "who is the better pitcher?, then any decision about who should pitch in high leverage situations is an easy one -- the better one (however you wwant to measure that).
Whenever I hear debate about "clutchiness" and RBIs, the first name that always comes to mind is JP Arencibia, who has actually boasted that he cares more about RBIs than anything else -- and was roundly ridiculed by sabremetricians for his attitude. An interesting question is whether you'd rather have a high-OBP hitter with a low SLG, or would you prefer a low-OBP hitter with a high SLG. Adam Lind has an OBP which is a massive 110 points higher than JPA's on-base percentage this season (small sample size alert), but JPA has obviously been the more valuable hitter this year, despite his consistently poor OBP.
That's probably not a fair comparison, since Lind's SLG has been so pathetic this season (small sample size) and since JPA is unlikely to be posting a .634 SLG by the end of the season. We should look at a high-OBP hitter with an OPS much more similar to Arencibia and see if the OBP guy is more valuable than the RBI slugging guy....
That's probably not a fair comparison, since Lind's SLG has been so pathetic this season (small sample size) and since JPA is unlikely to be posting a .634 SLG by the end of the season. We should look at a high-OBP hitter with an OPS much more similar to Arencibia and see if the OBP guy is more valuable than the RBI slugging guy....
If you accept that certain pitchers are better at dealing with pressure (high leverage) situations than others, then shouldn't it follow that some batters are better than others at hitting in high leverage situations?
The guys who are better pitchers and hitters to start with are likely to produce better in those situations. Not because they're clutch performers. Because they're better players. So yes, Curt Schilling was one of the greatest post-season performers in the history of the game. But he was a helluva player to start with. There's simply no there there, unless someone like John MacDonald consistently turns out to be a better hitter than Albert Pujols in certain situations.
The guys who are better pitchers and hitters to start with are likely to produce better in those situations. Not because they're clutch performers. Because they're better players. So yes, Curt Schilling was one of the greatest post-season performers in the history of the game. But he was a helluva player to start with. There's simply no there there, unless someone like John MacDonald consistently turns out to be a better hitter than Albert Pujols in certain situations.
One way to determine the relative merits of OBP and slugging is to run two simulations (one with a lineup of 350/450 players and another with a lineup of 300/500 players). That will tell you which type of player is more productive.
It's hard to compare Lind and Arencibia in this regard, as Lind has a 713 OPS and Arencibia has a 920 OPS, so you wouldn't be comparing apples to apples. You could try taking 207 points off Arencibia's slugging percentage and see which player comes out ahead (after correcting for the discrepancy in PAs).
It's hard to compare Lind and Arencibia in this regard, as Lind has a 713 OPS and Arencibia has a 920 OPS, so you wouldn't be comparing apples to apples. You could try taking 207 points off Arencibia's slugging percentage and see which player comes out ahead (after correcting for the discrepancy in PAs).
Hows about this for a case study?
Rickey Henderson over 40. Age, OBP, PA
40: 423 526
41: 368 519
42: 366 465
43: 369 222
44: 321 84
From age 40 to the end he had 1816 PA with a slash line of 253/381/370, or from 41 to the end 228/364/330 scoring 192 runs in 1290 PA or a pace over 162 of 90 runs scored, 34 SB, 10 CS, but just 45 RBI. Given the small sample size his final year one wonders if he still could've been producing a 360+ OBP for a few more years. A shame he didn't get that shot somewhere (he spent 2 more years in the indy leagues with 450+ OBP's). Trivia: His final PA in the majors was a HBP, advanced on a bunt, scored on a single.
He was pure OBP by then. Would you want that on this team? A guy who can get on base 36-37% of the time and has good speed?
Rickey Henderson over 40. Age, OBP, PA
40: 423 526
41: 368 519
42: 366 465
43: 369 222
44: 321 84
From age 40 to the end he had 1816 PA with a slash line of 253/381/370, or from 41 to the end 228/364/330 scoring 192 runs in 1290 PA or a pace over 162 of 90 runs scored, 34 SB, 10 CS, but just 45 RBI. Given the small sample size his final year one wonders if he still could've been producing a 360+ OBP for a few more years. A shame he didn't get that shot somewhere (he spent 2 more years in the indy leagues with 450+ OBP's). Trivia: His final PA in the majors was a HBP, advanced on a bunt, scored on a single.
He was pure OBP by then. Would you want that on this team? A guy who can get on base 36-37% of the time and has good speed?
On a completely unrelated topic, check out Yu Darvish's consistent release point
Pitchers are generally used in higher leverage situations because they are better, not because they are clutchy. Managers do not much influence at all on the leverage of the situation that a particular batter has.
Managers do not think of high-leverage situations in the same way that stat analysts do; they certainly define them differently. Furthermore they're also much more interested in assigning specific bullpen roles to their pitchers, and using them accordingly. This is in accordance with the belief - and it's a belief that I think has a good bit of merit - that pitchers perform better when they know exactly how and when they may be called on.
Managers do not think of high-leverage situations in the same way that stat analysts do; they certainly define them differently. Furthermore they're also much more interested in assigning specific bullpen roles to their pitchers, and using them accordingly. This is in accordance with the belief - and it's a belief that I think has a good bit of merit - that pitchers perform better when they know exactly how and when they may be called on.
JPA this year has hit worse as leverage has increased. He has also hit best with bases empty, worse with men on, and worse still with runners in scoring position.
Last year was the other way around. 2011 was different than again. Smells like randomness.
Last year was the other way around. 2011 was different than again. Smells like randomness.
one with a lineup of 350/450 players and another with a lineup of 300/500 players
There's no comparison at all on a team basis - a lineup of nine .350/.450 hitters would easily outscore nine .300/.500 hitters. They might outscore nine .300/.550 hitters. All that power ceases to help you if there's no one on base. Even if the second group has the nine better hitters on an indivual basis, as a team it simply doesn't work. Which is why the 1987 Cardinals (.340/.378 - OPS .718) outscored the 1987 Giants (.324/.430 - OPS .754), for example.
There's no comparison at all on a team basis - a lineup of nine .350/.450 hitters would easily outscore nine .300/.500 hitters. They might outscore nine .300/.550 hitters. All that power ceases to help you if there's no one on base. Even if the second group has the nine better hitters on an indivual basis, as a team it simply doesn't work. Which is why the 1987 Cardinals (.340/.378 - OPS .718) outscored the 1987 Giants (.324/.430 - OPS .754), for example.
The team is coming to the end of 20 consecutive games. Esmil Rogers has pitched 4 of the last 5 games. They now have a 4 game series in NY with Dickey semi-injured, and their 3-4-5 starters going. Small wonder they called up a RHP instead of a position player to ride the bench.
"Which is why the 1987 Cardinals (.340/.378 - OPS .718) outscored the 1987 Giants (.324/.430 - OPS .754), for example."
I'm surprised the difference (15 runs) isn't bigger than it is, given that the Cardinals had great speed (248 SB, 72 CS) and the Giants were awful in that department (126 SB, 97 CS).
I'm surprised the difference (15 runs) isn't bigger than it is, given that the Cardinals had great speed (248 SB, 72 CS) and the Giants were awful in that department (126 SB, 97 CS).
Hypobole, I agree with you about "clutchiness" and the likely explanation of randomness. I think I'm just making a more banal point: the Jays need a balance of sluggers and OBP guys, which means that a hitter like JPA can be valuable, even with a poor OBP. Of course it's much easier to make that argument this season (when JPA has an OPS of .920) than in previous seasons when his OPS was .720 or worse. His current SLG of .634 is unsustainable, but it would be nice if he could keep it over .500 (which would give him a very useful OPS above .800).
A lineup with sluggers (JPA, Encarnacion, Bautista) has to be balanced with several good OBP guys. That's why the Reyes injury was so devastating. I'm skeptical that Lind or Kawasaki are the long-term answers on the OBP issue. Cabrera, Lawrie, Izturis and others have to improve their on-base percentages.
A lineup with sluggers (JPA, Encarnacion, Bautista) has to be balanced with several good OBP guys. That's why the Reyes injury was so devastating. I'm skeptical that Lind or Kawasaki are the long-term answers on the OBP issue. Cabrera, Lawrie, Izturis and others have to improve their on-base percentages.
"....They now have a 4 game series in NY with Dickey semi-injured...."
I think the phrase "semi-injured" is somewhat exaggerated. He's accustomed to pitching with aches and pains. Don't forget that Dickey suffered a torn abdominal muscle in his second game of 2012 and played the entire season with a "dull pain" in his stomach area -- and still won a Cy Young award. The story is here:
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8455401/new-york-mets-ra-dickey-pitched-most-season-torn-muscle-side
I think the phrase "semi-injured" is somewhat exaggerated. He's accustomed to pitching with aches and pains. Don't forget that Dickey suffered a torn abdominal muscle in his second game of 2012 and played the entire season with a "dull pain" in his stomach area -- and still won a Cy Young award. The story is here:
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/8455401/new-york-mets-ra-dickey-pitched-most-season-torn-muscle-side
a balance of sluggers and OBP guys
The best hitters, of course, are those who can get on base and hit for power (Mike Trout in 2012, for example).
The best hitters, of course, are those who can get on base and hit for power (Mike Trout in 2012, for example).