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.
Friday, February 19, 2010
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)
