The Blue Jays Thread: 2008 Season

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The pitching can't get any better then the last two seasons...but the answer to your question sure seems like a resounding "No."

But I do think we have the building blocks of a solid offensive team, kind of like the Flames minus Iggy.
Problem is, Iggy's are difficult to find.

And in MLB they generally need a few years to become big time producers too. That is why I wonder if the team has to consider trading off Halladay for a ransom of players this offseason. It would hurt since he is a such a horse for that rotation. But if the hitting isn't going to be there next year...it's going to be tough to keep convincing Roy that the team will be good enough to compete while he's still at the peak of his game. This could be a very interesting offseason for the Jays. Do they try to chase down that king pin player for the middle of the lineup, or do they decide they need to committ to developing the next playoff calibre team?

[Gozer]

I'll stop being a Jays fan if they trade Doc, but you may be right in that it's the only way to be a genuine contender.

[Sylvanfan]

Yeah, and I'm not an anti-Halladay guy or anything. I just think that it's shamefull that a player that good hasn't really ever had a legitimate chance at being in the playoffs. Unless the Jays lineup gets that one great core piece...I don't think it's going to happen next year either. So if they can't land a great center piece for that lineup...they might have to face facts and start over.

As a former Expos fan I'm far too familiar with what it's like to have your best players move on before winning anything with your favorite team. Still can't say I've found a MLB team that I'd consider myself a real fan of since the death of the Expos. I watch the Jays...but I don't really cheer for them or get excited when they win.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The problem in the Jays lineup is that there is no batter that is feared. Reed sees good pitches because if he is walked than a teammate will score him.

As long as there is no feared batter in the Jays lineup, everyone's job is tougher. If Reed was in TO he wouldn't be over .800 OPS.

"Protection" is a myth.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I just looked, JP said Snider will not be up.

Cooper played 4 years in college - he's not as green as Snider was, although I might be getting carried away putting either of these two on the club next year.

Snider could easily get a shot next year. He's already up to AAA and if he has a strong finish to the season there he'll get a good look in spring training.

It's really no surprise that Snider won't get the call-up this year though. He's better off making the natural progression through the minors and playing every day than sitting in the Blue Jay's dugout.

[Jason14h]

"Protection" is a myth.

Just curious, why do you believe this? I have never seen an evidence or managers/players dispute the fact that having a better hitter behind you doesn't increase your chance of seeing good pitches?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Just curious, why do you believe this? I have never seen an evidence or managers/players dispute the fact that having a better hitter behind you doesn't increase your chance of seeing good pitches?

I've read several statistical breakdowns that show there's no significant statistical benefit from hitting with protection. I'll try and dig up some articles now.

The problem is that players/managers all buy into traditional baseball logic, which can be terribly wrong, but no one will deviate from it. Good examples are a pitcher's W-L record being a good indicator of their ability, RBIs having any importance, and stolen bases having a significant importance. Looking at the numbers you can break down these beliefs in minutes, but you'd be hard pressed to find a manager that doesn't still hold them true.

EDIT: Here's a really good chapter from a really good book that breaks down protection: http://books.google.com/books?id=uxd...esult#PPA45,M1
The Chapter starts on page 35 talking about how lineup order is essentially meaningless. Protection is brought up at the end of page 38.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by JayP

I've read several statistical breakdowns that show there's no significant statistical benefit from hitting with protection. I'll try and dig up some articles now.

The problem is that players/managers all buy into traditional baseball logic, which can be terribly wrong, but no one will deviate from it. Good examples are a pitcher's W-L record being a good indicator of their ability, RBIs having any importance, and stolen bases having a significant importance. Looking at the numbers you can break down these beliefs in minutes, but you'd be hard pressed to find a manager that doesn't still hold them true.

EDIT: Here's a really good chapter from a really good book that breaks down protection: http://books.google.com/books?id=uxd...esult#PPA45,M1
The Chapter starts on page 35 talking about how lineup order is essentially meaningless. Protection is brought up at the end of page 38.

I've read some of that book, not that particular chapter (until just now). They don't make a very convincing case to me - mostly because they don't address my assumption - that a player's statistics increase when surrounded by more talented players.

A lot of the assumptions they make is based off analysis of statistics. They analyze a hypothetical lineup where a high slugging / poor on-base leadoff and a high on-base / poor slugging bats second - and the reverse. But these are scored based on the statistics these players got under the statistics they got in "real" baseball and it's strategies.

The analysis on Bonds was equally perplexing. They "proved" that Bonds walking so much was irrelevant because he faced as many walk-friendly situations as an average player. The average player gets a LOT of walk-friendly situations - batting with one out and no one on is extremely common, and is a failure of a team to "protect" their slugger. Show me that A-Rod sees as many walk-friendly scenarios as the average batter and I'll eat my hat.
I take that 'average walk situations stat' as proof that he was walked so often (intentionally or otherwise) because he had no protection (his team was unable to force the pitcher into difficult situations). If Bonds had faced way fewer walk-friendly situations, he would have had more hit-friendly situations - logically leading to more hits.
(this seems so simple I must be missing something.)

I consider the assumption that the '02 Bonds would have had the same number of quality pitches to hit per at bat if surrounded by other excellent sluggers to be foolish on its face.

David Ortiz batting after Youkilis earns a ten pitch walk and ManRam behind him will see more fastballs than Barry Bonds batting with the bases empty and Pedro Feliz behind him. Numbers be damned, I know my truthiness.

[Machiavelli]

Litsch is back up with the big club; starting against the Tigers for the series finale. Parrish was sent down to AAA to make room, and Richmond was moved to the bullpen.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I've read some of that book, not that particular chapter (until just now). They don't make a very convincing case to me - mostly because they don't address my assumption - that a player's statistics increase when surrounded by more talented players.

The graph on page 42 addresses this.

A lot of the assumptions they make is based off analysis of statistics. They analyze a hypothetical lineup where a high slugging / poor on-base leadoff and a high on-base / poor slugging bats second - and the reverse. But these are scored based on the statistics these players got under the statistics they got in "real" baseball and it's strategies.

I don't see how that's relevant. Even if protection exists, some players are simply better than others.

The analysis on Bonds was equally perplexing. They "proved" that Bonds walking so much was irrelevant because he faced as many walk-friendly situations as an average player. I take that as proof that he was walked so often (intentionally or otherwise) because he had no protection (his team was unable to force the pitcher into difficult situations). If Bonds had faced way fewer walk-friendly situations, he would have had more hit-friendly situations - logically leading to more hits.
(this seems so simple I must be missing something.)

I just re-read that entire excerpt and the entire point of it was to explain what the theory of protection was. That really had no bearing on their analysis.

I consider the assumption that the '02 Bonds would have had the same number of quality pitches to hit per at bat if surrounded by other excellent sluggers to be foolish on its face.

But what constitutes a quality pitch? There's clear analysis showing that pitchers pitch differently depending on the level of protection a batter has. They will typically see more fastballs and more strikes. But that doesn't mean they're quality pitches. A Hardball Times article I read earlier (can't find it again) clearly showed that with a good hitter on deck a player will typically walk less. But they tried to their damnedest to show an improvement in hitting the ball and there wasn't.

David Ortiz batting after Youkilis earns a ten pitch walk and ManRam behind him will see more fastballs than Barry Bonds batting with the bases empty and Pedro Feliz behind him. Numbers be damned, I know my truthiness.

Pitchers will pitch them differently. I agree with you there. Statistics even back that up. But statistics also say there's no significant increase in performance for a hitter with protection so does it really matter if he sees more fastballs or not?

[JayP]

Here's a much better article than the Baseball Prospectus one than destroys the theory of protection:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CkO...kKXTQ#PPA26,M1

It even shows that protection is often a negative. The main point of the article is that pitching is not always equal. Pitchers take stuff off their pitches all game depending on the situation and the batter. So when you say ManRam saw more fastballs because Ortiz is in the batter's box it means nothing. Those fastballs aren't the same ones as Julio Lugo sees in the #9 spot.

[Sylvanfan]

So when you look towards next year....are you going to consider the OPS numbers that Rolen, Overbay, Wells, and Rios have put up, factor that with the rest of their career numbers and project them to hit at that level. Or are you just going to say they all had off years and will rebound to their previous levels?

I think you could maybe expect Rios to get back to being a 850 OPS guy, maybe even Wells, Lind is another would should be over 800. But with the rest of that lineup I can't say I see anyone that I'd be expecting 800OPS production from save maybe Aaron Hill who'd be in the low 800's at best. I think the team needs a true slugger type who can get on base to either play first base or DH. Question is do you let a guy like Snider apprentice for that role, or do you spend the big money to get one.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by JayP

Here's a much better article than the Baseball Prospectus one than destroys the theory of protection:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CkO...kKXTQ#PPA26,M1

It even shows that protection is often a negative. The main point of the article is that pitching is not always equal. Pitchers take stuff off their pitches all game depending on the situation and the batter. So when you say ManRam saw more fastballs because Ortiz is in the batter's box it means nothing. Those fastballs aren't the same ones as Julio Lugo sees in the #9 spot.

Interesting and informative. Thanks for posting those.

Would you surmise that a team that alternated between strong and weak batters would be superior to a cluster of strong hitters and a cluster of weak?
Extrapolating what I got from your post, that way a pitcher couldn't "coast" for a Lugo type and then "buckle down" for the heart of the order.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Interesting and informative. Thanks for posting those.

Would you surmise that a team that alternated between strong and weak batters would be superior to a cluster of strong hitters and a cluster of weak?
Extrapolating what I got from your post, that way a pitcher couldn't "coast" for a Lugo type and then "buckle down" for the heart of the order.

It'd say it's still clearly the best strategy to cluster strong hitters together. The main conclusion of the article is that protection has a minor effect. Although the batter's numbers did drop in their findings, they were drops of around 1-3%. That's not nearly enough of a drop in production to balance the difference between your typical 3-5 hitter and a 9 hitter.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

So when you look towards next year....are you going to consider the OPS numbers that Rolen, Overbay, Wells, and Rios have put up, factor that with the rest of their career numbers and project them to hit at that level. Or are you just going to say they all had off years and will rebound to their previous levels?

I think you could maybe expect Rios to get back to being a 850 OPS guy, maybe even Wells, Lind is another would should be over 800. But with the rest of that lineup I can't say I see anyone that I'd be expecting 800OPS production from save maybe Aaron Hill who'd be in the low 800's at best. I think the team needs a true slugger type who can get on base to either play first base or DH. Question is do you let a guy like Snider apprentice for that role, or do you spend the big money to get one.

I would expect Rios to rebound back into that .850 OPS range. Wells should have a better season if he stays healthy. Lind is probably a safe bet to hover around that .800-.825 OPS mark.

Overbay's numbers should be a bit better.

Hill will be a nice addition, but he's not going to be a huge upgrade (if at all) over Joe Inglett's .778 OPS this year.

At this point I would say the team needs to go after a quality shortstop. The sluggers the Jays would be targeting will all be aging and on the decline (ie; Frank Thomas). Not only that, there's guys like Snider and Cooper who will be filling those roles in the next couple years. It's not as if it's difficult to find those types of players (although it helps if your GM doesn't rip into the HR leader who got traded for 3 minor leaguers)

[Gozer]

Micheal Young + Raul Ibanez ?

[Antithesis]

I have to agree with the sentiment that the Jays should look into trading Halladay. They should be able to get a king's ransom for him this off-season, assuming the GM is competent enough to find it.

[flambers]

Personally I don't believe there is any chance the team will look to move Halladay... If they do that basically signals a complete rebuilding process....

In my view the Jays believe they are not that far away from a team that could push for a playoff spot... The pitching is there, the missing element is the hitting. They need to find a way to land two big bats (DH and first).

[Flickered Flame]

Originally Posted by flambers

Personally I don't believe there is any chance the team will look to move Halladay... If they do that basically signals a complete rebuilding process....

In my view the Jays believe they are not that far away from a team that could push for a playoff spot... The pitching is there, the missing element is the hitting. They need to find a way to land two big bats (DH and first).

Here is my opinion and remember I don't cheer for the Jays but I don't think they can land a big bat without moving some of that good pitching. I don't see big named FAs signing with the Jays. Also, I read somewhere that Adam Dunn is looking for 100 million. If he gets that then the bar suddenly gets raised a whole lot more in my opinion, but I don't think he would get anything near 100 mill. I am not saying that Dunn is who the Jays should or would go after because clearly JP wants nothing to do with him.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Flickered Flame

Here is my opinion and remember I don't cheer for the Jays but I don't think they can land a big bat without moving some of that good pitching. I don't see big named FAs signing with the Jays. Also, I read somewhere that Adam Dunn is looking for 100 million. If he gets that then the bar suddenly gets raised a whole lot more in my opinion, but I don't think he would get anything near 100 mill. I am not saying that Dunn is who the Jays should or would go after because clearly JP wants nothing to do with him.

I would think JP will try to trade for a power hitter... remember JP said at the trade dead-line they thought they had a done deal for Raul Ibanez.

Anyhow... I guess we have to wait for the Winter to find out.