I think I'm going to just rack this JJ Ruiz stuff up to more ado about nothing. A team that needs talent as much as the Jays of course should look for as much of it as possible, but how many LH 1b/dh/lf do you need? (Lind, Snider, Overbay and Wallace) Especially when, you also have 2 RH ones (another Ruiz and Dopirak) as well. I think in the back of my head I am starting to believe that either Wallace or Lind is actually being looked at as some kind of future trade bait, in addition to Overbay obviously leaving.
Adeiny Hechevarria however is a different story. The Jays need to get as many SS prospects as possible, and hope one of them turns into something in the next couple of seasons, hopefully a capable lead off hitter as well. If atos wants to stock up on something, that would be the thing to me. Maybe he can turn Overbay and some of the excess bullpen pieces into a prospect ss at the end of spring training.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
In Praise of Jose Bautista - Sort Of - Or maybe: Just Screw It!
I was thinking about writing a post fleshing out more my feelings about how bad I thought it was that Travis Snider isn't going to be the starting right fielder, and instead Cito says it's going to be Jose Bautista out there and batting leadoff. Originally I thought this was pretty stupid, but then in thinking about a post to write about how stupid it was I started thinking about it and, well, maybe it's not that simple. So here are the multiple ways it seems you can approach this, some a little more sympathetic to what might be the Jays thinking, some not so.
1. Maybe this is just some final mind games with Travis, and he's going to get a shot out in right to start or eventually in spring if he's hitting up a storm, and it really will be Travis in right and Lind in left most of the time and let's see how it goes. The problem with this thinking is:
2. If you can't find a place for Bautista then who is going to lead off? I mean as much as I might like to say, "who cares the team sucks, they are going to lose 100 games what does it matter if they have a leadoff hitter or not", Cito actually has to manage the team, a team full of guys who probably aren't going to be happy to loose 100 games, even if it is in their best long term interest. Do I really know that Travis even is going to be happy getting 600AB on a miserable team where guys are grumbling about they can't get anybody on base. Will Hill, will Lind? As much as I don't care about these things and discount them, even I can't say they don't exist at all. At least this looks like it's a plan that may not completely suck to the team, rather than just capitulation before you even start.
3. If you told me that Scutaro was going to have the kind of success leading off that he did last season, I would have told you you were crazy. Maybe it was just a fluke. Or maybe Cito really did work some magic and he thinks he can do it again. That really is the X-factor that I hadn't thought of before I started considering this, I wonder if anybody else has (I haven't noticed at bluejays.com or djf)? And if he really can turn Bautista into an above average MLB offensive force for the next 4 or 5 season (800+ OPS, 15-20HR 370OBP) that should certainly make people look differently at his legacy. You don't want that guy batting leadoff and playing rf or even cf?
4. Or maybe just screw it! My first thought was the best one. Bautista will never be anything but a utility guy with some pop. Bat Gonzalez at lead off, bat Encarnacion there for all I care. Just put Snider in rf and Lind in lf and let them prove they can't play. That is what's most important.
In the end this is more complex than I thought, and it makes me a little more sympathetic to the position Cito is in, and a little more upset at atos for putting him in this position. Maybe it explains the Gregg signing a little more. I mean as much as everybody maybe upset that Cito is mysteriously here for one more season, he doesn't have to be, and he's actually putting himself in a pretty lousy no-win situation doing it. He really is taking one for the team in a lot of ways. Why shouldn't he do it the way he see's best.
1. Maybe this is just some final mind games with Travis, and he's going to get a shot out in right to start or eventually in spring if he's hitting up a storm, and it really will be Travis in right and Lind in left most of the time and let's see how it goes. The problem with this thinking is:
2. If you can't find a place for Bautista then who is going to lead off? I mean as much as I might like to say, "who cares the team sucks, they are going to lose 100 games what does it matter if they have a leadoff hitter or not", Cito actually has to manage the team, a team full of guys who probably aren't going to be happy to loose 100 games, even if it is in their best long term interest. Do I really know that Travis even is going to be happy getting 600AB on a miserable team where guys are grumbling about they can't get anybody on base. Will Hill, will Lind? As much as I don't care about these things and discount them, even I can't say they don't exist at all. At least this looks like it's a plan that may not completely suck to the team, rather than just capitulation before you even start.
3. If you told me that Scutaro was going to have the kind of success leading off that he did last season, I would have told you you were crazy. Maybe it was just a fluke. Or maybe Cito really did work some magic and he thinks he can do it again. That really is the X-factor that I hadn't thought of before I started considering this, I wonder if anybody else has (I haven't noticed at bluejays.com or djf)? And if he really can turn Bautista into an above average MLB offensive force for the next 4 or 5 season (800+ OPS, 15-20HR 370OBP) that should certainly make people look differently at his legacy. You don't want that guy batting leadoff and playing rf or even cf?
4. Or maybe just screw it! My first thought was the best one. Bautista will never be anything but a utility guy with some pop. Bat Gonzalez at lead off, bat Encarnacion there for all I care. Just put Snider in rf and Lind in lf and let them prove they can't play. That is what's most important.
In the end this is more complex than I thought, and it makes me a little more sympathetic to the position Cito is in, and a little more upset at atos for putting him in this position. Maybe it explains the Gregg signing a little more. I mean as much as everybody maybe upset that Cito is mysteriously here for one more season, he doesn't have to be, and he's actually putting himself in a pretty lousy no-win situation doing it. He really is taking one for the team in a lot of ways. Why shouldn't he do it the way he see's best.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Catching up
Been a little bit rough in the recovery department the last couple of days so I'm just catching up on things. It looks like nothing has happened so we are all even.
First thing first, Bastian has now written a number of articles without having to start by reminding us that Roy Halladay is no longer a Jay. Yay to that.
I see that Lyle Overbay has finally gotten the gist of this "baseball is a business" thing. Good for Lyle. I really hope he has a monster of a season, gets traded for some good stuff, and can sign another contract somewhere. He really got robbed with the hand injury.
Vernon wants to take on more of a leadership role, or just rambled on about it in an interview about the only polite topic of discussion you can really have with him that doesn't involve "hope your wrist feels better". I wonder who's going to be "gritty" on this team now that we have the leadership issue covered for the time being.
Brandon Morrow is looking forward to a season where he doesn't have to guess whether it's starter or bullpen. Nobody wants to say he's guaranteed the job but you have to believe If he doesn't go out to the mound and forget to throw it to the catcher he's in. Especially since none of the guys who came back in the Halladay deal seem likely to be starting the season above AAA. I'm actually pretty excited about Morrow, I'll have to post something about that later.
There's an article about atos spending a week in the DR at the new digs and talking in circles about drafts and international players and cubans oh my! I really like the parts about the "high risk/high reward" stuff. Dude they are all high risk/high reward, unless you get guys who you know are lousy and won't ever amount to anything. Anyways I do like that they say they are going to be looking at everybody, sounds good, but it will be better when we start seeing some results. Besides he's got to do something with the 1,255 scouts the Jays now have. Funny thing is I thought I remembered at least 1 if not 2 of these being announced already, but i'm not going back to look.
Even the pretend games cannot start soon enough.
First thing first, Bastian has now written a number of articles without having to start by reminding us that Roy Halladay is no longer a Jay. Yay to that.
I see that Lyle Overbay has finally gotten the gist of this "baseball is a business" thing. Good for Lyle. I really hope he has a monster of a season, gets traded for some good stuff, and can sign another contract somewhere. He really got robbed with the hand injury.
Vernon wants to take on more of a leadership role, or just rambled on about it in an interview about the only polite topic of discussion you can really have with him that doesn't involve "hope your wrist feels better". I wonder who's going to be "gritty" on this team now that we have the leadership issue covered for the time being.
Brandon Morrow is looking forward to a season where he doesn't have to guess whether it's starter or bullpen. Nobody wants to say he's guaranteed the job but you have to believe If he doesn't go out to the mound and forget to throw it to the catcher he's in. Especially since none of the guys who came back in the Halladay deal seem likely to be starting the season above AAA. I'm actually pretty excited about Morrow, I'll have to post something about that later.
There's an article about atos spending a week in the DR at the new digs and talking in circles about drafts and international players and cubans oh my! I really like the parts about the "high risk/high reward" stuff. Dude they are all high risk/high reward, unless you get guys who you know are lousy and won't ever amount to anything. Anyways I do like that they say they are going to be looking at everybody, sounds good, but it will be better when we start seeing some results. Besides he's got to do something with the 1,255 scouts the Jays now have. Funny thing is I thought I remembered at least 1 if not 2 of these being announced already, but i'm not going back to look.
Even the pretend games cannot start soon enough.
Obama in a Canada Jersey
I like this, and of course now it's going to happen. So I think the logical next step is that when Canada meets the USA for the men's gold, Harper and Obama have to make a similar bet, because I think there would be nothing better than seeing Obama walking around the white house for a day in a Luongo jersey and all the "surrender" wailing from the right wing nutcases. I mean apparently the logo for some Missile Defense department or something looks to much like Obama's campaign logo combined with a crescent or something and that means Muslim hordes are about to invade America, or something. If he wore a Maple Leaf for a day I'm sure that would mean we would be overtaking them with our socialist healthcare.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The First "Meaningful" Dispatch from Camp is not Encouraging
Bastian's first report from active Spring Training (is that right?) starts with a sad story about Roy Halladay's lonely locker, and I have to say if I have to read much more about this kind of crap I may not be getting any more Jays news from anywhere. He's gooooone for gawdds sake Jordan, when are you going to cut it out? Are you going to dredge up his carcass yet again after atos makes his first big move of next off season and harken back to the Halladay trade in the first paragraph of all those reports? Because I can definitely see that everything you write this season is probably going to open with a Halladay reference whether it's helpful or not.
Anyways it just goes downhill from there because this is all about Cito and his "plans" and yes the man has plans. Yeah I think Cito is wrong about most of this stuff, but I just don't care about it at this point because really can we expect any of this stuff to survive may? However you structure the lineup, the starters and the bullpen, the team would suck. Personally yes I would like to see Encarnacion bat 2nd and Hill bat 4th with Lind 3rd because that makes sense to me and I think they are intriguing ideas. But you know what, I'm pretty sure after the second week of the season things are going to get pretty fluid so whatever he rambles about now, it's not what's going to actually happen. I'm holding onto that anyways.
I did like the thing about no Halladay working every 5 days and more flexibility in the staff because of it. I'm not quite sure the paragraph actually made any sense, but I'm going to hope it means they have no intention of sticking to a strict 5 man rotation in order to generate more starting opportunities for more guys. Kind of sounds like my 6-man rotation idea doesn't it?
So I'll cling to that 1 poorly written paragraph in an otherwise dismal report to keep my hope alive that they have some kind of reasonable plan to develop something this season.
Update: Brian Tallet as one of the 5 starters? I will be first to admit that I thought he showed some promise as a 4th or 5th starter last season, and if they were going to go for it this season he should get a shot. But give those chances to some young guys with a lot more promise for the future if this is a lost year.
Anyways it just goes downhill from there because this is all about Cito and his "plans" and yes the man has plans. Yeah I think Cito is wrong about most of this stuff, but I just don't care about it at this point because really can we expect any of this stuff to survive may? However you structure the lineup, the starters and the bullpen, the team would suck. Personally yes I would like to see Encarnacion bat 2nd and Hill bat 4th with Lind 3rd because that makes sense to me and I think they are intriguing ideas. But you know what, I'm pretty sure after the second week of the season things are going to get pretty fluid so whatever he rambles about now, it's not what's going to actually happen. I'm holding onto that anyways.
I did like the thing about no Halladay working every 5 days and more flexibility in the staff because of it. I'm not quite sure the paragraph actually made any sense, but I'm going to hope it means they have no intention of sticking to a strict 5 man rotation in order to generate more starting opportunities for more guys. Kind of sounds like my 6-man rotation idea doesn't it?
So I'll cling to that 1 poorly written paragraph in an otherwise dismal report to keep my hope alive that they have some kind of reasonable plan to develop something this season.
Update: Brian Tallet as one of the 5 starters? I will be first to admit that I thought he showed some promise as a 4th or 5th starter last season, and if they were going to go for it this season he should get a shot. But give those chances to some young guys with a lot more promise for the future if this is a lost year.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Felipe Lopez is still out there
I wrote a post where i kind of thought the Jays should be interested in Felipe Lopez, but couldn't really come up with a reason why. Well he's still available and I still can't really come up with a reason to be honest. It seems like there's a pretty good chance at this point he might be available next season too. I don't honestly know if the guy can play a decent everyday shortstop at this point, or if it looks like he might get bad quick. And really that's the only reason to sign somebody, that they can fill that shortstop position for the next couple or 3 years. He can play a lot of positions though, and had a pretty good year with the bat.
So really, other than being a probably better version of Jose Bautista, without as many home runs, I still can't think of why to sign him. But then I couldn't figure out a reason to sign Jose Molina either, so what do I know?
So really, other than being a probably better version of Jose Bautista, without as many home runs, I still can't think of why to sign him. But then I couldn't figure out a reason to sign Jose Molina either, so what do I know?
Obligatory Why Does Spring Training have to be so Loooong Post
I thought I'd get this out of the way before everybody else runs out of something to say about the 3rd week of march and starts complaining about the length of Spring Training. Reviewing the schedule today, holy crap. The Jays don't play a pretend game until March 3, and then of course don't play a REAL game until April 5. Couldn't they knock off the pretend games around the 3rd week of March and get the season going? Or at least March 29th this year? Dome stadiums and southern teams and all that. Maybe then the World Series wouldn't have to be played in November.
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Seeing the future of Travis Snider
Travis Snider is probably going to be the most exciting story of this season. Yes there is a good chance a starting pitcher could be, but they can only pitch every 5 days, so Travis has the natural advantage if he can really show his potential.
I don't have any especially original or technical insight here, I can only state that his resume shows there is incredible potential, and there can't be anything left to show below MLB. Especially for a team that has no legitate shot at even a .500 record. He should play just about every day, and it might as well be right field until he proves he's overmatched (and Lind might as well play lf a lot to boot). Nothing else makes even a lick of sense. He needs to go out there everyday and prove he can do it or he can't. There isn't anything to hide or protect him from, or anything he can damage. It may take 2 seasons instead of just this one, but he's got to play.
Maybe people see another potential Rios in Snider, but i don't think you can make that comparison. Rios was certainly well hyped, but he had an up and down minor league career. There were definitely seasons where he was overmatched and showed he needed work to improve. That's not so with Snider, he dominated with the bat at every level, MLB is where he needs to be.
This doesn't mean Snider is a sure thing. He still has to do it. Maybe he's another Delgado, or maybe Matt Stairs. Or maybe Eric Hinske. We don't know. The point is, it's time to get out of his way and let him find out.
I don't have any especially original or technical insight here, I can only state that his resume shows there is incredible potential, and there can't be anything left to show below MLB. Especially for a team that has no legitate shot at even a .500 record. He should play just about every day, and it might as well be right field until he proves he's overmatched (and Lind might as well play lf a lot to boot). Nothing else makes even a lick of sense. He needs to go out there everyday and prove he can do it or he can't. There isn't anything to hide or protect him from, or anything he can damage. It may take 2 seasons instead of just this one, but he's got to play.
Maybe people see another potential Rios in Snider, but i don't think you can make that comparison. Rios was certainly well hyped, but he had an up and down minor league career. There were definitely seasons where he was overmatched and showed he needed work to improve. That's not so with Snider, he dominated with the bat at every level, MLB is where he needs to be.
This doesn't mean Snider is a sure thing. He still has to do it. Maybe he's another Delgado, or maybe Matt Stairs. Or maybe Eric Hinske. We don't know. The point is, it's time to get out of his way and let him find out.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Backup Catcher Death Match + More Good McGowan News!
Jose Molina vs Raul Chavez. Baseball-Reference.com comparison page of the 2. How you figure out which of these guys is supposed to be the better option I have no idea. I mean wouldn't this be like watching 2 turtles race? Is it too much to hope that one of the Cibias, either Aren or Aaron can knock off both of these guys and bring some kind of interest to the position.
via djf Jordan Bastian reports that Dustin McGowan will throw his 6th bullpen session tomorrow, and the medical staff is trying not to get too excited.
Keep proving me wrong Dustin, keep proving me wrong.
via djf Jordan Bastian reports that Dustin McGowan will throw his 6th bullpen session tomorrow, and the medical staff is trying not to get too excited.
Keep proving me wrong Dustin, keep proving me wrong.
Message to Canadian Alpine Skiers
Wow you guys are sucking, big time! Better get things in gear, or we are going to care even less about your elitist white man sport.
Bring on the SnowCross!
Bring on the SnowCross!
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Here's a Crazy Idea
Latest in a long line of Crazy Ignorant Ideas: 6 Starter Rotation for the 2010 season!
If we are all being honest that the Jays don't have a chance in 2010, and the idea is to do as much development as possible, why not just go with it. With 5 starters in the rotation if a starter takes all their regular turns they get somewhere around 32 starts. If you put it to 6 that drops to around 27. This allows for 3 positive things:
1) You are letting one more pitcher get a chance to start at the major league level, rather than sit in the bullpen or make starts in the minors instead. Let's be honest here, there are probably going to be at least 6 starters at the end of spring training that a non-contender should seriously let start. At my count there are already Marcum, Morrow, Romero, Cecil and Rzep who all should be given the chance to start regularly next season, unless they prove otherwise this spring. If McGowan is actually healthy why shouldn't he get a chance too? Why should he push one of those guys to the bullpen, or get pushed there? And it's not likely that McGowan will be the only guy in that situation either. What if Drabek, Jenkins or Stewart are lights out? What if Purcey finds his way? Why is Dana Eveland even here?
I'm not saying here that the Jays are going to have some awesome list of starters to pick from at the end of spring training. What I think we are looking at here is a pretty currently mediocre bunch that some good things can develop from. But giving as many of them as much chance as possible is a good thing and what you should be trying to do.
2) It keeps the number of innings these guys rack up down, while letting them pitch a whole season. Is there really any starter this team is going to throw out there who you want to pitch more than 200 innings? Romero, Marcum and Morrow would seem to have jobs sewn up, but Romero is the only one I would even think about it with, and even then what would the point be? None of the other apparent options have probably come anywhere near 200IP in a season except McGowan, and again why would you want to press your luck with him even if he's going great. And I'd rather see everybody pitch every 6th day right through the season rather than have somebody pitch until early september and shut it down and then try and mix new guys in in the last couple of weeks.
3) To be completely ruthless about it, the larger the rotation is, the more competition there is and the more openings there for other guys when somebody gets hurt or sucks, which is going to happen. If the pitchers know that 2011 the rotation is going back to 5, and maybe some free agents might be coming in to take some of those spots, well the more guys you have competing for those 2011 spots the better the competition.
If you have 6 starting pitchers and somebody gets hurt or starts to suck, you can stay at 6, giving a 7th guy a chance. If you start at 5 starters and that happens you will still only have given 6 guys a chance when you bring in the replacement. And on it goes through the season. Having 6 starters also gives you one more guy as an option to be replaced when somebody gets healthy or earns there way back from the minors.
There are some arguments against this of course. When pitchers are going good of course they'd like the ball more often. And if you don't ever let your pitchers start 30games a year then they never will. But if this is a 1 season plan then i think there's a lot of merit to it. I doubt at the end of the 2011 season anybody will look back and say the reason the jays didn't compete is because they didn't have enough guys who could pitch 200 innings.
And it's not like you can't go back to 5 if there are any problems.
If we are all being honest that the Jays don't have a chance in 2010, and the idea is to do as much development as possible, why not just go with it. With 5 starters in the rotation if a starter takes all their regular turns they get somewhere around 32 starts. If you put it to 6 that drops to around 27. This allows for 3 positive things:
1) You are letting one more pitcher get a chance to start at the major league level, rather than sit in the bullpen or make starts in the minors instead. Let's be honest here, there are probably going to be at least 6 starters at the end of spring training that a non-contender should seriously let start. At my count there are already Marcum, Morrow, Romero, Cecil and Rzep who all should be given the chance to start regularly next season, unless they prove otherwise this spring. If McGowan is actually healthy why shouldn't he get a chance too? Why should he push one of those guys to the bullpen, or get pushed there? And it's not likely that McGowan will be the only guy in that situation either. What if Drabek, Jenkins or Stewart are lights out? What if Purcey finds his way? Why is Dana Eveland even here?
I'm not saying here that the Jays are going to have some awesome list of starters to pick from at the end of spring training. What I think we are looking at here is a pretty currently mediocre bunch that some good things can develop from. But giving as many of them as much chance as possible is a good thing and what you should be trying to do.
2) It keeps the number of innings these guys rack up down, while letting them pitch a whole season. Is there really any starter this team is going to throw out there who you want to pitch more than 200 innings? Romero, Marcum and Morrow would seem to have jobs sewn up, but Romero is the only one I would even think about it with, and even then what would the point be? None of the other apparent options have probably come anywhere near 200IP in a season except McGowan, and again why would you want to press your luck with him even if he's going great. And I'd rather see everybody pitch every 6th day right through the season rather than have somebody pitch until early september and shut it down and then try and mix new guys in in the last couple of weeks.
3) To be completely ruthless about it, the larger the rotation is, the more competition there is and the more openings there for other guys when somebody gets hurt or sucks, which is going to happen. If the pitchers know that 2011 the rotation is going back to 5, and maybe some free agents might be coming in to take some of those spots, well the more guys you have competing for those 2011 spots the better the competition.
If you have 6 starting pitchers and somebody gets hurt or starts to suck, you can stay at 6, giving a 7th guy a chance. If you start at 5 starters and that happens you will still only have given 6 guys a chance when you bring in the replacement. And on it goes through the season. Having 6 starters also gives you one more guy as an option to be replaced when somebody gets healthy or earns there way back from the minors.
There are some arguments against this of course. When pitchers are going good of course they'd like the ball more often. And if you don't ever let your pitchers start 30games a year then they never will. But if this is a 1 season plan then i think there's a lot of merit to it. I doubt at the end of the 2011 season anybody will look back and say the reason the jays didn't compete is because they didn't have enough guys who could pitch 200 innings.
And it's not like you can't go back to 5 if there are any problems.
Dana Eveland
I don't know, I just give up on this one. The best i can figure it is there must be a number of pitchers the Jays just do not want to pitch at the MLB level this year, but I hope that's not the case. I cannot see how he's better than just about any option the jays currently have. In his best year he just missed an ERA+ of 100, and was never anywhere close in any of his other seasons, although he showed promise in the minors. Why waste a roster spot on the guy? If you really do burn through whatever starters you wanted to use ahead of this guy, couldn't you just pick somebody up off waivers or something rather than need to have this guy ready to go? And what is giving him one of the 5 starting spots supposed to do for the team (god i hope not, i'd rather cross my fingers on Brad Mills).
Superbowl
This is old news by now, but I have been out having my colon re-sectioned so you know...
I wasn't very into the game on the day as I wasn't feeling very well (hence the re-sectioning) and was watching it in less than ideal conditions. Anyways I think the Saints definitely earned it. They figured out a way to slow down the Colts offense enough, got the key turnover and made a couple of unconventional decisions that turned out well. Freeny's decreasing effectiveness thru the game didn't help the Colts for sure, but that's life.
One thing that I wanted to point out here is I thought it was kind of funny that the commentators kind of completely missed the point of the Saints going for it on 4-2 at the goal (and not making it) and the onside kick.
I'm all for coaches being "unconventional", but i think too much focus gets placed on the unconventional parts of decisions, and not the conventional things that really still end up deciding things. On the 4-2 where even though the Saints failed to score a touchdown or a field goal. Yes they did pin the Colts down, yes the Colts failed to move the ball and had to punt, and the Saints ended up getting the field goal anyways. But you know why that all worked? Because the Saints didn't let the Colts score, because they played good defense. If they had taken the field goal instead and kept the Colts from scoring that would have been even better. If the Colts had stopped the the Saints and then driven the field for a Touchdown, I think we would have had a completely different game.
The on-side kick turned out well for the Saints because of one of the most conventional things about football that everybody kind of ignores. When a football is loose among a bunch of players, there really is no good way to properly decide who really got possession of it. Especially in a really big scrum like the one you get in an on-side kick. On the replay it certainly looked like a Colt had the best chance at the ball, but then 3 or 4 Saints got on top of him and guess what? They had it by the time the whole thing was broken up. This is kind of the same thing as the very conventional thing that turned the Patriots decision to go for it on 4th and short in their game against the Colts into such a disaster. Football really just has a lousy way generally of deciding where to spot the ball. How did the officials decide the Patriots didn't get a first down on that play? I'm still not sure, it looked like they did to me.
Look I'm not trying to says these are bad things to do. I think going for it on 4th down and short yardage situations is obvious. And I think teams should try more on-side kicks. If you were a team that figured out how to get good at recovering on side kicks, say to the point where you could guarantee yourself a 40-50% recovery rate, wouldn't you use that to your advantage? And if you had a stellar defense and a good running game? Why would you ever not onside kick it and go for it on 4th and short out of the other teams field goal range all the time? That has just seemed obvious to me as a winning strategy for years if you can make it happen.
I wasn't very into the game on the day as I wasn't feeling very well (hence the re-sectioning) and was watching it in less than ideal conditions. Anyways I think the Saints definitely earned it. They figured out a way to slow down the Colts offense enough, got the key turnover and made a couple of unconventional decisions that turned out well. Freeny's decreasing effectiveness thru the game didn't help the Colts for sure, but that's life.
One thing that I wanted to point out here is I thought it was kind of funny that the commentators kind of completely missed the point of the Saints going for it on 4-2 at the goal (and not making it) and the onside kick.
I'm all for coaches being "unconventional", but i think too much focus gets placed on the unconventional parts of decisions, and not the conventional things that really still end up deciding things. On the 4-2 where even though the Saints failed to score a touchdown or a field goal. Yes they did pin the Colts down, yes the Colts failed to move the ball and had to punt, and the Saints ended up getting the field goal anyways. But you know why that all worked? Because the Saints didn't let the Colts score, because they played good defense. If they had taken the field goal instead and kept the Colts from scoring that would have been even better. If the Colts had stopped the the Saints and then driven the field for a Touchdown, I think we would have had a completely different game.
The on-side kick turned out well for the Saints because of one of the most conventional things about football that everybody kind of ignores. When a football is loose among a bunch of players, there really is no good way to properly decide who really got possession of it. Especially in a really big scrum like the one you get in an on-side kick. On the replay it certainly looked like a Colt had the best chance at the ball, but then 3 or 4 Saints got on top of him and guess what? They had it by the time the whole thing was broken up. This is kind of the same thing as the very conventional thing that turned the Patriots decision to go for it on 4th and short in their game against the Colts into such a disaster. Football really just has a lousy way generally of deciding where to spot the ball. How did the officials decide the Patriots didn't get a first down on that play? I'm still not sure, it looked like they did to me.
Look I'm not trying to says these are bad things to do. I think going for it on 4th down and short yardage situations is obvious. And I think teams should try more on-side kicks. If you were a team that figured out how to get good at recovering on side kicks, say to the point where you could guarantee yourself a 40-50% recovery rate, wouldn't you use that to your advantage? And if you had a stellar defense and a good running game? Why would you ever not onside kick it and go for it on 4th and short out of the other teams field goal range all the time? That has just seemed obvious to me as a winning strategy for years if you can make it happen.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Conference Championships and the Superbowl
What to say, the big weekend is finally here. The Superbowl looks like it's going to be a pretty good game. Should be a high scoring game, and if Freeny is out or limited it could be pretty close. But I think you have to give the edge to the Colts no matter what. They dismantled a team with the best defense and the best running game in the Conference Championship. New Orleans has a great offense, and a pretty good defense, but if they couldn't hold back the Vikings, what are they going to do against the Colts?
As for the the NFC Championship, if the Vikings hadn't turned it over to the Saints, they would definitely be in this game. You cannot turn over the ball that often and hope to win, you just cannot. I don't like the NFL overtime rules, especially in the playoffs, but the conversation begins and ends with Peterson turnovers and Favre turning into Favre.
Hopefully this doesn't turn into 49's/Chargers on Sunday.
As for the the NFC Championship, if the Vikings hadn't turned it over to the Saints, they would definitely be in this game. You cannot turn over the ball that often and hope to win, you just cannot. I don't like the NFL overtime rules, especially in the playoffs, but the conversation begins and ends with Peterson turnovers and Favre turning into Favre.
Hopefully this doesn't turn into 49's/Chargers on Sunday.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Kevin Gregg?
As crowded as LF-1B-DH and the potential starting rotation are, they are nothing compared to what the bullpen is. Considering that given the number of bodies that are already jammed in their, and at least some guys who can't be starters and can't get sent down are also going to have to fit, why would you sign Kevin Gregg?
Downs and Frasor are already in their "competing" for closer for some reason, why add another questionable veteran to that mix. Especially when the veteran is as questionable as Gregg? I could understand if he was some guy you couldn't believe you had the chance to sign but Kevin Gregg? He's no more likely to find his past "glory" than Roenicke, Janssen or Accardo are to find their's in that role, and why should he be eating up their opportunity?
Maybe this is the move that happens because Chapman/Sheets/other big name isn't happening, but Kevin Gregg is a big name? Maybe some more people are on the move, but even then why do you need Gregg?
Obviously, I'm confused?
Update:
Well they did it, at least it's got 2 club option years, that way if he does find his form next year he's trapped in as payment for screwing up development for a year. Too cute by half i'd call it but at least it's not a 1-year deal where he could get good and then walk with the jays not having developed a replacement.
Downs and Frasor are already in their "competing" for closer for some reason, why add another questionable veteran to that mix. Especially when the veteran is as questionable as Gregg? I could understand if he was some guy you couldn't believe you had the chance to sign but Kevin Gregg? He's no more likely to find his past "glory" than Roenicke, Janssen or Accardo are to find their's in that role, and why should he be eating up their opportunity?
Maybe this is the move that happens because Chapman/Sheets/other big name isn't happening, but Kevin Gregg is a big name? Maybe some more people are on the move, but even then why do you need Gregg?
Obviously, I'm confused?
Update:
Well they did it, at least it's got 2 club option years, that way if he does find his form next year he's trapped in as payment for screwing up development for a year. Too cute by half i'd call it but at least it's not a 1-year deal where he could get good and then walk with the jays not having developed a replacement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
