Thems My Jays
Above average pitching. Below average hitting. Little to no timely hitting. A young left handed hurler dominates the Jays lineup. Last night's 3-1 loss to the Oakland A's almost felt as comforting as getting a shitty present from your grandmother at Christmas. It's absolutely useless, but at least it's familiar.
The Good
A.J. Burnett struck out ten batters in five and two-thirds. Other than a sudden case of shittiness in the fourth inning with two outs, the .500 pitcher looked excellent.
Alex Rios went 2 for 4, and scored the Jays only run, in the top of the eighth, thanks to a Kevin Mench single. Mench also went 2 for 4, and didn't look completely useless at all in right field. David Pluckstein returned to the lineup, going 2 for 3 with a walk.
The Bad
While Eckstein looked good at the plate, his atrocities on the field were on par with the worst South American dictator. In the first inning, Lower Case X dropped an easy grounder and just managed to make the play at first. Then, Lyle Overbay received an error on the next at bat, but it had a little bit more to do with Eckstein's throw than any deficiency with the first baseman's fielding.
In total, the Jays left 10 runners on base last night. The biggest culprit was Rowdy Rod Barajas who went 0 for 4 with two strikeouts, and left four runners on.
The Ugly
Frank Thomas hit a double to the gap in the bottom of the third.
Let's forget for the moment that the only reason the Jays dumped the suddenly surging Thomas was because of the ridiculous contract bonus they offered him that would have put them on the hook for far too much money next season.
Watching Thomas try to stretch a double into a double was a painful experience, but not just for us at home. The Big Hurt strained his leg and knee in the process of stumbling around the bases at his usual warp speed and took the rest of the night off.
Posts
40 comments:
They left 20 runners on base? Wow... I actually had to do the math in my head to see if that was even possible.
Team LOB: 10.
With RISP: 1 for 9.
FIELDING
E: R Barajas (1); L Overbay (3).
That's why we lost last night. Plain and simple.
I disagree with saying Eckstein is more to blame for Overbay's error. I don't care how gimpy Eckstein's arm is, a first baseman needs to be able to catch balls like that. It wasn't even in the dirt.
Not that I'm knocking Overbay, he's usually pretty good, but he should've had that.
Sorry dudes. I meant ten.
Ryan, I understand what you're saying, and that's Overbay got the error, but come on. The shortstop has to do a better job than that.
Admittedly though, the play before added to the eye-rolling element for Eckstein.
Trade em.
Oh I agree with the Eckstein sentiment. Watching him on those two plays was like watching a 10 year old.
He did make a pretty good play on that stolen base-turned-run by the A's, though I thought Scutaro probably should've been on top of that.
I understand the Eckstein stuff, but I have a hard time shitting on a guy who got on base three of four times when the very, very obvious problem last night was the hitting.
You've never had a problem shitting on a guy before . . .
In fairness to Stoeten, there's a reason why we don't eat off of his glass coffee table.
what, the hundred empty beer bottles and cans?
I think it would be hilarious of Thomas goes on the DL because of that double. That's what he gets for trying to go for extra bases!
beau = swift
Griffin couldn't help himself in his column today ...
Eckstein should be cut some slack. Looking sunburned, but otherwise none the worse for the wear, the Jays' gritty shortstop ...
I like to think that I have a rapists whit.
And that's nothing -- did you see this gem from Cory form London: "I just think that as fans, we are as much to blame as anyone else."
But then again, maybe I'm just a jerk for thinking Brad Wilkerson has more to do with Brad Wilkerson hitting .205 than I do.
I can barely read Griff's mailbag anymore, because it often results in regurgitation of my lunch.
The best part about the Thomas double was how Rios threw the ball in, and we wondered why he was throwing it to first base, and then suddenly it turned a corner in midair and Hill almost tagged Frank out.
I got a question for you guys. Barry Bonds will never be a Blue Jay, I understand that. What I don't understand is how there have emerged two distinct camps on the issue. Those who believe he would make a great Jay (Wilner) and those who believe he is a "cancer to the clubhouse" and all that stuff.
Where do each of you DJF writers sit on the topic? Do you disagree with each other? Do you disagree with Wilner? I wouldn't mind hearing a discussion about it on your podcast, even if it is a moot point. Thanks.
barry bonds is an awesome guy
My guess is Stoeten sides with Wilner (zing!)
Griffin's mailbag sucked this week. He didn't really say anything overly dumb or illogical, didn't try to make any jokes, and in spite of the "gritty" comment, he was actually mildly critical of the Eckstein signing.
There were even a couple of mildly insightful points. What the fuck.
Barry Bonds would be a needless distraction to the club, and considering he doesn't care about anyone but himself, I don't understand why some people want him so bad. He may hit a few dingers but I can't see him being some great saviour.
Overall it would end up as another bad, gimmicky signing by JP.
Ryan, how do you know the Jays' clubhouse isn't already full of assholes who don't care about anyone other than themselves?
dt, I was just writing that same thing about Griffin!
Also...
Barry Bonds would instantly make this a far better lineup, and the perceived impact of clubhouse chemistry is insanely overblown. In fact, it's literally insane that anyone puts any stock in that whatsoever. It's pretty much just a bullshit talking point that athletes and coaches use because they are trained to be as bland and uninformative in interviews as possible. They don't want the public breaking down the clubhouse walls, so they put on a little show for the media, and talk about things like chemistry, heart, grit, effort, and all sorts of emotionally-based things that fans can latch onto but that don't really mean anything.
Bonds was just as cancerous in SF, he and Kent hated each other, and together they went to the playoffs three of six years and came within-- what was it?-- something like six outs of winning the '02 World Series? Giants wins over those six years: 90, 89, 86, 97, 90, 95. All of that was under one of the worst managers in the game, too. I think I'm being generous to the other side of this argument when I say that 95% of a team's success comes down to the talent of its players. Or... more correctly, the ability of its players to transfer their talent into actual performance.
I mean, is it possible that Aaron Hill is going to ground into a double play or throw wildly to first base because he's pissed off that Gregg Zaun is always farting in the shower or because he's not looking forward to getting back in the dugout and hearing that asshole Mench try to crack jokes again? And as absurd as those examples sound, that's sort of close to how people think. But the thing is, if a player was that sensitive to those kinds of off the field things, it's almost a certainty that he'd have never made it this far. Let's assume the average major leaguer plays for 15 summers before he even gets to the big leagues. It's impossible to think that he wouldn't have run into his share of clubhouse assholes or coaches who he hated or who knew fuck all. Yet he obviously kept playing well, kept improving and kept progressing in his career. The ability to handle that kind of stuff, to focus on the task at hand when they're on the field and to not let it affect their performance is exactly why a lot of these are in the bigs and not just really talented washouts.
And look at the last World Series winners: Boston with Schilling and Manny-- who I'm sure could ruffle some clubhouse feathers--- or the White Sox with that douchebag Pierzynski, or how about the Cardinals with all that Rolen/LaRussa bullshit going on?
And do the other guys at DJF agree? If they do, where exactly is this sentiment coming from that Bonds would be the worst thing to happen to the Jays? I know JP said it, but he doesn't have a choice. And I know a bunch of fans who believe in "grit" and "clubhouse atmosphere" are saying it, but they are tools. Someone has to have put forth a reasonable argument as to why this guy isn't good for the Jays... right?
My unofficial number crunching tells me that 94.5693% of Burnett's walks come against #9 hitters.
what a fucking headcase this guy is.
Did you know the Jays have an OPS of .608 out of the leftfield spot, and a LF in the minors with a .928 OPS? True story.
Can someone PLEASE call JP tonight and really press him on the Lind vs. Wilkerson thing? I'm going to be at the beach when he's on (what the fuck is wrong with my priorities) but surely someone can do it? eli?
Stoeten is sort of right and sort of full of shit.
I'm fine with bringing Bonds in from a "clubhouse atmosphere" perspective. The guy is probably a bit of a cunt, judging only by Game of Shadows and media perceptions, but I doubt he's any more of a prick than Frank Thomas.
And there's no doubt that he does fit in with what the Jays should be looking for. But I think there's an important factor that everyone is overlooking. The dude hasn't been playing baseball for nine months. He'll also be 44 years old in July. Bodies at that age simply don't rebound as easily as one in it's twenties.
Look at Frank Thomas, and remember how the Jays supposedly got rid of him for supposedly taking too long to heat up. How much longer is it going to take an older Bonds whose had a longer layoff?
It's more of a risk than Stoetilner would lead you to believe. The thing is that if Bonds is willing to sign for league minimum, in my mind, it's well worth that risk.
As for the second part of Stoeten's statement, I'll take it the other way and say that it's ridiculous to suggest that the clubhouse atmosphere has nothing to do with on field performance.
I've said it a gazillion times that different people are engaged in what they do by different things. Just think about your own performance at work, and compare it to the different bosses you've worked for, or the different organizations you've worked in.
Stoeten says that "95% of a team's success comes down to the talent of its players. Or... more correctly, the ability of its players to transfer their talent into actual performance."
Well, that's just it. Transferring talent into performance. Over 162 games, you're going to get a pretty good idea of talent, but when it comes down to individual at bats, individual pitches, there are so many untrackable factors at play that can affect that transfer from talent to performance.
The thing is, as fans and even media, we have no idea what makes one person achieve higher success in a certain setting over another. That's why it's so fucking stupid to say that Bonds would be a cancer in the dressing room and cause the team to lose. Who's to say that the guys assembled there won't be motivated all the more by a fuckface who insists on having three lockers to himself?
I'm totally sick of that THESE ARE MLB PLAYERS excuse, as if they're not also human beings that go through the same emotions and bullshit as the rest of us.
And another thing to that I hate is how, the haters of intangibles will bring up intangible factors when it suits them. Did anyone else hear Wilner last night say something about how the first game of this West Coast series is hard for the Jays because of the lack of a travel day?
I thought these were professional athletes. Do you really think a five hour flight is going to tire them out?
So, in summation: Bonds, meuh. Intangibles, yes. Thinking you have any understanding of those intangibles, no.
Are you sure that wasn't supposed to be an actual post???
The thing about baseball though is that it's sort of an individual team sport. In basketball and hockey and soccer you have to play off your teammates and sort of "read their minds". In the 0.8 seconds that Alex Rios has to see a pitch, I'm pretty sure he's going to be focused on hitting the ball and not on Barry Bonds. So I kind of buy into chemistry in sports where you have to pass to each other, but baseball....not so much.
Talent and clubhouse aside, can anyone imagine the clusterfuck of bullshit that would be created if Bonds came to Toronto? The Toronto media, and fans, who already struggle to understand a sport which is not played on ice, would go ape shit if he came here. All of a sudden everyone would have an opinion about Bonds, baseball and the Jays. All eyes would be on Bonds all the time. I'm not prepared to deal with that shit, and for that reason alone, I'm glad they didn't pick him up.
Say what you will but I really don't think Bonds would have a very big offensive impact on this club. You'd have to slot him in at DH (face it - he's a useless outfielder). His last two seasons he hit a combined .272; Matt Stairs is hitting somewhere around there as well. I fail to see where Bonds would have much of an impact, other than on the media where no one would talk about anything but Bonds until he retired.
anonymous@8:07: Do you really think batting average is the stat that best describes Bonds' potential contribution to this club? And do you really think Stairs would be the odd man out if Bonds became a Jay?
I think distractions are distractions, whether you're waiting for a 3-2 pitch or passing the ball across the court.
Good point, Briz. However, can you think of anyone on this Jays team that would be upset by a lack of attention?
It's sort of weird that the whole Bonds thing is being brought up at this time. Clearly, Kamran, whose name I think I butchered (and ethnicity I likely mocked) on one of the podcasts, works for the Jays and is doing some market research.
the five-year plan matter is now settled. from the words of JP:
all u have to do is go back and look at the toronto sun... theres a quote in it that says "im not going to sit here and tell you we have a five year plan" i never said were gonna have a five year plan. i dont believe in saying any kind of plan. bc i think every situation is different. and i think that some ppl can go into certain situations and turn things around in 1 or 2 years and some situations take a little bit longer. so i wasnt naive enough to think we were gonna go into the AL east, cut payroll and in 3 or 4 years turn this thing around. so i never ever said that. and im glad you asked the question.
anyone want to give odds on how long it will take before griffin mentions the "five year plan" again?
The "Bonds ruins chemistry" arguments kills me.
Doesn't a team have to have some chemistry in the first place, for it to be a concern that someone will "ruin" it?
One would think Vernon Wells' flaming gayness might affect clubhouse chemistry quite a bit
One would think Vernon Wells flaming gayness might affect clubhouse chemistry quite a bit
Post a Comment