Second Guesses on First Pitches

Swinging at the first pitch is a lot like stealing bases. Nobody minds too much when it works but loves pointing out what a horrible mistake it is when it goes wrong.

Last night the Jays got a lesson in BABIP from Rays starter Wade Davis. A known strikethrower, the Jays stayed aggressive by swinging early and often. Davis rode the Rays new pitching backward philosophy to a measure of success - allowing just three runs in 7 innings.

Wade's low pitch count was a discussion point for much of the night, with the prevailing opinion that the Jays were playing right into his hands by aggressively hacking away.

In all, Davis faced 33 Blue Jays and distributed the first pitches this way:

1. Four seam fastballs: 8
2. Curveballs: 7
3. Changeups: 6
4. Two seam fastballs:6
5. Sliders: 5

There might be some bleed between two-seamers and changeups but Davis clearly mixed his pitches very well to start out the Jays hitters.

I remain of the belief that swinging at the first pitch isn't a bad thing as long as you get something to whack. Below is a strikezone plot of all the first pitches, including Juan Cruz's first pitch cutter. Let's see what we find.



Other than a few cases, you can't really say any Jays expanded the zone. Rajai Davis swung and missed a curveball in his second at bat after singling on the first pitch in his first PA.

In all, the Jays took 19 pitches, fouled three off, reached safely with hit and Juan Rivera hit his second inning home run on the first pitch he saw. The Jays hit .333/.333/.667 on the first pitch last night. Not too bad at all, I'll certainly take it.

As always, we must fight what we see with what we think we see and what we know. Swinging at the first pitch from a guy always around the plate is certainly not a bad play as a rule. Context matters a lot but going up to the plate looking to rip is not something I oppose.

It is what happens next that defines hitters: can they show some patience and stay in hitters counts or are they aggressive in way that hurts them? I think that is the million dollar question, quite literally.

Pitch F/X data from Joe Lefkowitz.

John Farrell is a Professional Fun Sponge

Fun-spongery is pretty much right there in the job description. Removing Ricky Romero just one out shy of a complete game shutout was a curious choice yet, even though my job is complaining loudly about the excruciating minutiae, I didn't find it that reprehensible.

Allow me to bust out a chronological timeline of my paraphrased feelings/sentiments as expressed on Twitter (if you don't follow, you should! My personal level of life satisfaction is directly proportional to my follower count.)

• When Farrell first came out for a mound visit, I was a little shocked. It was (I think) right after Ricky Roma made Jason Kubel look downright foolish. Romero then demo'd the concussed remnants of Justin Morneau. Romero looks good, why disrupt the rhythm?
• After a seeing-eye single by Delmon Young, Farrell brings out the hook. Romero looked a tad salty but didn't make a big production out of it. I admire his ability to balance competitive fire and leadership as making a scene when exiting the game with a lead is a little gauche.
• I begin my passive line of John Farrell defese - if Farrell left Romero in to face Cuddles (a lefty killer who handles changeups with aplomb) and Ricky gives up the lead, we'd kill him. We'd kill Cito for doing the same thing (Cito would've almost assuredly let Romero try to finish.)
• Farrell brings in "closer" Frank Frank to get Cuddyer. Francisco does his top-step-of-the-dugout routine and Ks Cuddyer - game over! Everybody's happy!

Except many people on Twitter were anything but happy, which I get. As I said: leaving Romero in for one more batter is exactly what I'd do but going to the 'pen doesn't stretch my credulity in the least.

Perhaps John Farrell isn't the trailblazing revolutionary many of us pined for. Going to Francisco is the safe thing to do, both in a traditional baseball sense (ill-informed matchups!) and in an optics sense (insulated from criticism! Safety first!) Calling for Farrell's job or claims that yanking Romero hampers his development is impulsive at best and recklessly disingenuous at worst.

It isn't that big a deal, in my mind. Pulling Morrow earlier in the week remains the far greater disservice even if the goal (keep winning games!) is roughly the same.

Are we demanding too much of Farrell? How many hats is the field manager supposed to wear? Is the "informed" fan's view of this season as a bridge to future success really the responsibility of The Manager, a guy who already needs to balance so many different egos and agendas?

This is one instance I cannot summon too much ire for the choice. I don't see one batter at the tail end of a game as a real teachable moment - the costs of failure might just outweigh the benefits of success. It's a lot more complex than it seems and more complex than many fans assume, myself included.

While Parkes, Stoeten, and I spend a lot of time killing many of Farrell's questionable in-game moves, this is one I don't feel the need to assail. He made a safe choice, one I don't think will have repercussions beyond last night. He's the manager (not yet The Manager) and it's still just the middle of May. I think I can reserve ultimate judgment for a few weeks yet.

Minor League Depth or Sign of Real Progress?

Luckily this is the Age of Blue Jays Enlightenment, wherein we quickly dismiss minor league depth signings like Corey Patterson and move along. Depth signings are depth signings, only the Chicken Littlest among us sees them any different.

However, were this but a few short years ago, with a certain now-retired field boss who gladly shoved ill-fitting players into pre-determined roles with little in the way of reservations, I'd be terrified.

You can bet, starting in spring training and any time a starting outfielder missed time with so much as a hangnail, Corey Patterson would leadoff every single game until Alex Anthopoulos separated Corey's name from the lineup with a crowbar. And as Walkoff Walk determined long, long ago: you do not hit Corey Patterson leadoff.

But we know things now. No need to sweat Corey Patterson, he's just looking for a job. Clarence's meddling paws are long gone and playing kids is the priority. Besides, real Blue Jays fans have much bigger fish to fry.

Image courtesy of the Walkoff Walk t-shirt store, which pre-dates my time there.

Where Do I Sign?

When the latest managerial heresy leaked like Yankee tears when Cliff Lee takes the mound that the Jays interviewed Sandy Alomar Jr. not once, not twice, but thrice (later confirmed by the deposed king of Bremner Boulevard), my first thought was "wow, that is a great idea." Seriously!

The performances of the competing managers — other than Bruce Bochy, a fact very difficult to think let alone type &mdash, during this playoff season should go to great lengths to prove the relative worth of a manager.

That said, Sandy Alomar Jr. hits most of the (baseless) criteria I want in the Jays next manager¹. Young, Spanish-speaking...and that's about it. That he Played In The Big Leagues surely helps in certain corners of the clubhouse but other than that, I just want him to stay out of his own way.

One concern for any prospect porn aficionado with a guy like Sandy Alomar is the Former Catcher Factor. Nothing frustrates more than seeing stud catcher of the future sit while gritty replacement-level "catch and throw guy" coaches up the young pitching staff. Is there value in that type of catcher? Of course, but young players can't learn those skills flicking sunflower seeds and blowing bubbles.

Giving somebody their first managerial job at the big league level is risky but hiring an iconoclastic name manager isn't without its pitfalls. Many of the names continue to surface like former catcher Tony Pena, owner of a giant face Clint Hurdle, and Timbit drunk Rob Thomson. None of them really hold my interest too tightly. I'm excited for a fresh start and I don't think I'm the only one.

¹ - I shouldn't have to say this is my back-up choice. See photo.

The Hunt is On

If, in searching for a new person to manage your quasi-competitive baseball team, you came to realize your baseball team has a history of excellence in both run production and prevention. Would it change the way you search for this bench boss?

Would you look for another master motivator, someone able to coax more career-best performances out of young players and veteran fill-ins? Would you follow the mold of the previous field general, a strong but silent type with an eye for confidence swoons and enthusiastic home run cuts?

Or would you think to yourself "if I, the head of baseball operations, assembled a roster so adept at both creating and preventing runs that still managed to finish distantly behind the playoff clubs, maybe I should seek a different kind of manager." After all, if my team is able to hang with the best in the game yet cannot manage to win the games they shouldn't, or even get the most out of the available talent.

Do I go with an established field boss or a loyal lieutenant with experience in the ringer? Do I stay mum on the process and watch the leeches and opportunists throw their hats in the ring?

Either way, it's a pretty big decision to make. Or it isn't, at all. One of the those two things. Depends on your perspective.

Image courtesy of Michael John Grist

Guilty by Association

The managerial replacement chase is heating up (quite prematurely, mind you) and Parkes the Drunk does a bang-up job running down the prospective replacements. While I'm firmly on team Butter, I don't know that I have too strong an opinion either way.

That's actually untrue. I have no desire to see a "name guy" just stepped off the managerial carousel walk in for a 16 month Canadian cameo. Internal options, young guys, Hispanic guys - I just want a manager I don't have to think about.

Suddenly, like a mulletted flash across the sky, Mitch Williams jabbed a previously ignored name into my frontal lobe: Nick Leyva. Consider the source for a moment then consider these comments:

Let's face it, the Blue Jays play in the toughest division in baseball, and a big-name manager is not going to be what puts them over the top. Don't be surprised if Nick Leyva gets another shot at managing, and he wouldn't cost the Blue Jays very much.

I don't know why, but the thought of Nick Leyva managing this club creeps me out. Maybe it's the reading glasses. All I know is I want someone free of Cito stink.

There was a shot of the dugout during last night's game with both Clarence and Leyva in the frame and I almost screamed. Shi Davidi, of the Canadian Press and hating me on Twitter fame, asked Leyva about moving to the big chair:

"My No. 1 goal is I'd like to replace Cito, and Alex knows that and I will get an interview when it's time to come around to us, I've been told that," he said. "Big shoes to fill. I feel my strengths are knowing this ball club."

Oh crap, I just got douche chills. For the love of good, don't give this man the reigns! "Knowing this ball club" is a simple way of saying "I have my mind made up on all these players." That we don't need. Fresh blood, fresh eyes, fresh outlook. Hope is where the heart is, after all.

Image courtesy of Baseball Card Busts and my very own confirmation bias

Burn the Book or Turn the Page

As stated many times before, both here and around the greater blogoverse, hating on Cito Gaston is a difficult proposition. So many of the memories are so positive, his kindly black dad aura remains quite difficult to hate. With Spring Training opening, he's going to start saying some typically wacky shit, so we need to be ready. We must arm ourselves against his wily charms.

Without spending any time around The Man(ager), we aren't privy to his mood swings or grudges, his distance from the team and associates, or any of the other negative shit that floats around but refuses to stick to Cito. What is a die-hard armchair GM left to do? Change the angle. Tear down the brand. Start again. Lose the moniker.

Cito is a pretty sweet name, but it isn't The Manager's birth name. His real name is Clarence, and that's how we're going to refer to him from now on. Clarence Gaston means nothing to you, he sounds like the could even be your slightly rude co-worker from Quebec. You'd have no problem second guessing Clarence Gaston. I sure as shit hope Clarence Gaston gets run out of town on a rail. Beat it Clarence, Cito doesn't live here any more.

It might be just that simple. If, in all of our collective armchair GM minds, Clarence botches the development of any of the precious young talent; putting a new face to the name might get us over the hump. It won't be easy, I'm having a hard time even finishing this post. But it is necessary. Riding into the sunset during a lost season isn't a fate befitting a manager of his supposed stature. Might as well grease the wheels of acrimony while we still can.

Daylife stole it from Reuters and I stole if from them