Official Toronto Blue Jays '13 Season Thread

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

That ankle turned 180 degrees. If it's bad, I don't know if Lawrie can fill into that leadoff position.

[UFCanuck]

When I was young(er), I couldn't watch baseball either. The slowness of the game would drive me nuts. "C'mon, c'mon! Throw the damn ball!".

But as I got older (perhaps because my brain slowed down?), I finally 'got' baseball. Been enjoying it for these past few years. Although it still irks me when a batter has to adjust every piece of his equipment after every swing of the bat.

I'm the opposite. When I was 12-16 I loved watching Golf and Baseball. I watched all of the Masters, was a big Blue Jays fan around the time when they got Troy Glaus and Frank Thomas. Now I can't change the channel fast enough, I do watch highlights once in a while.

Hockey is the most exciting sport in the world and it's the only sport that keeps my attention anymore.

[Gross-Misconduct]

That ankle turned 180 degrees. If it's bad, I don't know if Lawrie can fill into that leadoff position.

It looked real ugly. Pro's usually don't cry on the field unless it really hurts. Let's hope he's not gone long term.

Lawrie can lead off but he's not putting up Reyes numbers. Especially not his AVG.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

It looked real ugly. Pro's usually don't cry on the field unless it really hurts. Let's hope he's not gone long term.

Lawrie can lead off but he's not putting up Reyes numbers. Especially not his AVG.

Once he gets on base, he is fast. Plus he has a decent OBP.

It's his impatience (quick trigger) that doesn't make him a great baserunner. But on second thought, I suppose he can be a good stopgap leadoff for a team that's trying to win.

Once he gets better, of course. What should the order look like now? Cabrera can do leadoff (he's really fast considering how chubby he is), while I'd keep Bats at third, with JP doing the cleanup. I've no clue who to put second. Izturis?

[Gross-Misconduct]

It doesn't look good

Sat, Apr 13

Blue Jays general manager Alex Anthopoulos estimated Friday that Jose Reyes (ankle) could miss anywhere from 1-3 months.

Advice: We'll have a better idea on Reyes' status following an MRI on Saturday, but Anthopoulos considers a one-month absence the best-case scenario. It's a crushing blow for the Blue Jays and for fantasy owners who invested a high draft pick on the dynamic shortstop. Emilio Bonifacio probably has the edge to start over Maicer Izturis at shortstop, but Anthopoulous indicated that he has already had discussions with other general managers about possible trades.

[Goliath]

Baseball isn't as much as a team sport dynamic as say hockey is. How good or bad a batter is hitting has nothing to do with the rest of the team. No one helps him in that situation. He's either hitting or he isn't. And same goes for pitching. No one should use the excuse that they need to gel due to the heavy offseason moves.

[Gross-Misconduct]

Baseball isn't as much as a team sport dynamic as say hockey is. How good or bad a batter is hitting has nothing to do with the rest of the team. No one helps him in that situation. He's either hitting or he isn't. And same goes for pitching. No one should use the excuse that they need to gel due to the heavy offseason moves.

That's partially true. Baseball is the most individualized team sport of the 4 North American majors. Good team chemistry doesn't mean a team will succeed. But bad chemistry, mostly off the field and in the locker room, can hurt a team's on field performance. Especially in MLB since the season is so long with so many games and these guys have to see each other all time.

But I don't think the gel excuse is valid either.

[No_More_Larchide]

Baseball isn't as much as a team sport dynamic as say hockey is. How good or bad a batter is hitting has nothing to do with the rest of the team. No one helps him in that situation. He's either hitting or he isn't. And same goes for pitching. No one should use the excuse that they need to gel due to the heavy offseason moves.

You havent played baseball then. Someone like Reyes (who was hitting near .400) sparks the rest of the team, when he is on base you know any ball that finds field will probably score him, that motivates hitters. You dont think that being up to bat with 1 out and Reyes on 2nd makes it easier to hit than it would with 2 outs and no one on? The picther, fielders, catcher all have to be aware of the base runner and that means the hitter will have an easier ride.

Hitting has a lot to do with the rest of the team, it causes different situations, different pitches, etc. You have no idea what you're talking about.

And OF COURSE a pitcher has to "gel" with a new team. Do you have any idea the kind of practice/bond/gelling that goes on between a catcher and his pitcher? Rhetorical, I know you dont, lol. A catcher (who makes the most decisions on pitches/location) needs to know what his pitcher is capable of and when in order to make the correct calls. And watching Arencibia in the first few games catching for Dickey shows exactly what I am talking about. Catching a knuckleball is extremely hard if you havent done it before, so yes.... He needs "gel" time with Dickey and all the hew pitchers.

People think Baseball is 100% individual, its far from it. Baseball is all about situational decisions, situations that are heavily effected by your team and what they are doing/not doing on a given night. Is it as team orientated as Football/Hockey/Soccer/etc, no; however your team is very important to you on a given night.

Dont worry though, your opinion is one many uneducated baseball fans have, (not making fun of you, nor calling you out, its just the truth) which is common in Canada where people dont follow it as much as hockey or other sports.

[UnkNuk]

Blue Jays 3 Royals 2

Now *that* was the R.A. Dickey I was expecting to see from the start.

Nice win by the Jays with, perhaps, a bit of unnecessary drama at the end. But they won.

A couple of questions for the baseball experts around here:

Is it possible that Gibbons is micro-managing? I can understand yanking your starter after five or six innings and a hundred pitches. But I've often seen a reliever come in, pitch a couple of batters, and then be replaced by another reliever. Is that really necessary? These guys, even though they aren't starters, are professional ball players - they have talent, otherwise they wouldn't be in the major leagues. Do you really have to "match up" your reliever to a left handed (or right handed) batter? Why not put in the reliever and let him pitch for three innings or whatever?

Also, the announcers were saying that the coaching staff simplified the signals for the new guy - Kawasaki. That got me to wonderin'. What do the coaches signal to the batters? Isn't it pretty straight-forward - hit the ball as hard and as long as you can. Why do you need to signal to them? I can see in certain situations where, maybe, you need a sacrifice bunt, but otherwise what is the point of these signals?

Thanks.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

Blue Jays 3 Royals 2

Now *that* was the R.A. Dickey I was expecting to see from the start.

Nice win by the Jays with, perhaps, a bit of unnecessary drama at the end. But they won.

A couple of questions for the baseball experts around here:

Is it possible that Gibbons is micro-managing? I can understand yanking your starter after five or six innings and a hundred pitches. But I've often seen a reliever come in, pitch a couple of batters, and then be replaced by another reliever. Is that really necessary? These guys, even though they aren't starters, are professional ball players - they have talent, otherwise they wouldn't be in the major leagues. Do you really have to "match up" your reliever to a left handed (or right handed) batter? Why not put in the reliever and let him pitch for three innings or whatever?

Also, the announcers were saying that the coaching staff simplified the signals for the new guy - Kawasaki. That got me to wonderin'. What do the coaches signal to the batters? Isn't it pretty straight-forward - hit the ball as hard and as long as you can. Why do you need to signal to them? I can see in certain situations where, maybe, you need a sacrifice bunt, but otherwise what is the point of these signals?

Thanks.

You've got a mistaken concept about baseball here. Relief pitchers come in all shapes and sizes. Generally, a good starter can push out around 6 innings. So three innings left, right? Here we go.

4-6th innings: sometimes the starter gets chased, so you get the middle relievers to come into the game. These guys can do one or two innings a piece. A reliever should NEVER do three innings (they probably won't survive that long).

7-8th innings: this is when things get important. You're going to have batting substitutions and pinch hitters coming in. A bullpen will have specialists for all kinds of things. Usually a bullpen will have some left-handed specialists who come in and simply face one batter (I think we use Brett Cecil for those situations). Other than that, you just use the other relievers you have in your bullpen. So a good team with a deep bullpen will probably end up using 5 or 6 pitchers in a single game, which is how the game is played now.

9th inning: Closer, plain and simple. Every baseball team has a closer. We have Casey Janssen.

Long story short? This is how baseball is played. You'll see a lot of one-out pitchers in the World Series because that's what the manager is supposed to do. Gibbons is absolutely doing the right thing here.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

The signals you're thinking about are usually between the COACH and the RUNNER. The batter just came from the dugout, so he should know what he's planning to do. Still, what if you're the coach and you see a hole in the defence? What if the shortstop is leaning towards third base or is coming up for a bunt? You'd want to tell the batter to adjust his strategy just a little, like aim for the middle.

Or think about North American football, where the QB will call out audibles because he sees something in the defence and wants to adjust the offensive strategy. He'll yell out gibberish like "Silver!! 33!!" and everyone will know what to do. For baseball it's signals and sometimes it's just a ruse to trick the defence.

Now imagine teaching that to Kawasaki in one day, and expect him not to make any mistakes. Not happening.

[shiznak]

Is it possible that Gibbons is micro-managing? I can understand yanking your starter after five or six innings and a hundred pitches. But I've often seen a reliever come in, pitch a couple of batters, and then be replaced by another reliever. Is that really necessary? These guys, even though they aren't starters, are professional ball players - they have talent, otherwise they wouldn't be in the major leagues. Do you really have to "match up" your reliever to a left handed (or right handed) batter? Why not put in the reliever and let him pitch for three innings or more

Thanks.

Baseball is all about playing the percentage. Say you have a batter who is hitting under .200 against a lefty, obivously you would match him up against a left handed pitcher. The guy on deck is a right handed hitter and his avg. against lefties are well over .400. It would make sense to not leave your left handed reliever in the game, especially in a close game, where 4 runs may not be enough to win. Managers also factor in, past history against the batter and the pitcher.

Closers and setup-men are a different story, you throw the percentage crap out the window, because they just bring the heat and have filthy stuff.

[UnkNuk]

4-6th innings: sometimes the starter gets chased, so you get the middle relievers to come into the game. These guys can do one or two innings a piece. A reliever should NEVER do three innings (they probably won't survive that long).

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. WHY is it that a reliever can only do one or two innings apiece while a starter can do, at times, a complete nine innings? Is it that relievers are frail and out of shape? That seems unlikely. As well, aren't there times when a starting pitcher is relegated to the bullpen? Why, then, when he used to be able to pitch multiple inninings, is he suddenly only capable of pitching an inning or two?

[UnkNuk]

Baseball is all about playing the percentage. Say you have a batter who is hitting under .200 against a lefty, obivously you would match him up against a left handed pitcher. The guy on deck is a right handed hitter and his avg. against lefties are well over .400. It would make sense to not leave your left handed reliever in the game, especially in a close game, where 4 runs may not be enough to win. Managers also factor in, past history against the batter and the pitcher.

But starting pitchers also have different ERAs against left and right-handed batters. And yet they're allowed to face either type of batter for inning after inning. Sometimes even for a complete game as we saw Kansas do in the game on Saturday. So why is it that this match-up strategy doesn't seem to apply to starters, but only to relievers?

[Gross-Misconduct]

Dang, I thought they would pull this one out today. Obviously they need to get those bats going.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. WHY is it that a reliever can only do one or two innings apiece while a starter can do, at times, a complete nine innings? Is it that relievers are frail and out of shape? That seems unlikely. As well, aren't there times when a starting pitcher is relegated to the bullpen? Why, then, when he used to be able to pitch multiple inninings, is he suddenly only capable of pitching an inning or two?

But starting pitchers also have different ERAs against left and right-handed batters. And yet they're allowed to face either type of batter for inning after inning. Sometimes even for a complete game as we saw Kansas do in the game on Saturday. So why is it that this match-up strategy doesn't seem to apply to starters, but only to relievers?

I'll bite, but keep in mind that this is just how baseball workis. It's an archaic, old-fashioned sport with a defined system in place, just like hockey. Things aren't going to change overnight, even if the system seems broken. Still, there seems to be a logic when it comes to pitching.

Starters basically have one role, which is to eat up as many innings as possible. It's generally unwise to go over 100 pitches because of fatigue and risk of injuring yourself. Almost all teams use a 5-man starting rotation. So in spring training, most guys will be jostling for one of those spots. If you're good enough to make the team but not the starting rotation, you get sent to the bullpen. I guess there's a sense that these guys simply can't survive a couple of innings because they just aren't good enough (not just stamina, but maybe nerves, or they just lack the talent).

One big reason coaches don't want to push relievers is the stamina, though. If a guy throws three innings, he should not pitch again for the next two games. Three innings don't seem like much, but if a starter who throws 100 pitches needs six days off, a guy who throws 50 pitches (three innings) needs rest too. Keeping the relievers on a short leash ensures they don't get tired not just in the game, but after the game too.

I remember watching the 2009 WBC final between Japan and Korea. Our closer struggled but got out of the ninth inning. In the tenth, the coach decided to keep him in. He struggled again, and then Ichiro came to finish the job. Since it was the last game, there was no need to worry about rest, but he was a pure closer, and he shouldn't have been expected to last more than one inning. Japan used Darvish in the 9th and 10th, but he was a starter.

So the mentality for starters is to survive half the game. The mentality for relievers is to get the out, or finish the inning. That affects how they train and pitch during the season. A guy who only throws 20 pitches a game shouldn't be expected to suddenly throw 50. I think that's why Romero got sent down and not to the bullpen.

[UnkNuk]

I'll bite, but keep in mind that this is just how baseball workis. It's an archaic, old-fashioned sport with a defined system in place, just like hockey. Things aren't going to change overnight, even if the system seems broken. Still, there seems to be a logic when it comes to pitching.

Starters basically have one role, which is to eat up as many innings as possible. It's generally unwise to go over 100 pitches because of fatigue and risk of injuring yourself. Almost all teams use a 5-man starting rotation. So in spring training, most guys will be jostling for one of those spots. If you're good enough to make the team but not the starting rotation, you get sent to the bullpen. I guess there's a sense that these guys simply can't survive a couple of innings because they just aren't good enough (not just stamina, but maybe nerves, or they just lack the talent).

One big reason coaches don't want to push relievers is the stamina, though. If a guy throws three innings, he should not pitch again for the next two games. Three innings don't seem like much, but if a starter who throws 100 pitches needs six days off, a guy who throws 50 pitches (three innings) needs rest too. Keeping the relievers on a short leash ensures they don't get tired not just in the game, but after the game too.

I remember watching the 2009 WBC final between Japan and Korea. Our closer struggled but got out of the ninth inning. In the tenth, the coach decided to keep him in. He struggled again, and then Ichiro came to finish the job. Since it was the last game, there was no need to worry about rest, but he was a pure closer, and he shouldn't have been expected to last more than one inning. Japan used Darvish in the 9th and 10th, but he was a starter.

So the mentality for starters is to survive half the game. The mentality for relievers is to get the out, or finish the inning. That affects how they train and pitch during the season. A guy who only throws 20 pitches a game shouldn't be expected to suddenly throw 50. I think that's why Romero got sent down and not to the bullpen.

Thanks for your view, Bob.

I suppose I'd have to concede that MLB managers know a bit more about pitchers than I do.

Still and all, I'd like to get a chance and do a "Moneyball" thing with pitchers, something new.

"Well, Buck, the reliever has been in for four innings now and has given up ten home runs. He's pleading to be taken out of the game, but this new manager, UnkNuk, is turning a deaf ear. Never seen anything like it."

[UnkNuk]

"60 Minutes" did a segment tonight on R.A. Dickey.

It can be viewed here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50144818n

[Wilbur]

Another note on Starters vs Relievers

Relievers generally have a hard time going through a batting order more than once as batters can figure them out or they start to lose command. Take Brett Cecil for example. Super effective 1 time through the order (so far). The effectiveness goes WAY down after that. Relievers can get by with fewer pitches too, while starters may have more of a repetoire to keep batters guessing.

Other reasons have been mentioned before. Starters are like long distance runners and can maintain control through 100+ pitches. Relievers are like sprinters and can't keep it up for over an inning generally. There are differing expectations too. An ERA under 4.00 is regarded as pretty good for a starter. Whereas a reliever, you'd probably want it below 3.00.

[Wilbur]

Jays are 6-7 now.

Seems the wheels are slowly going in the right direction with both the starters and the bats. It'll be good to get Lawrie back.