Jays walk off in the 10th 3-2 over the Angels, Romero tosses a gem.
by JohnnyG on Sep 19, 2011 10:57 PM EDT
in Toronto Blue Jays Game Recaps
Email
Print
Yet another walk off win for the Jays tonight, I could get used to these things.
To be fair, the Jays never should have gone into extras to begin with. The team squandered numerous opportunities to score a go more runs and just couldn't get things across. At one point earlier in the game they had the bases loaded with no out and Colby Rasmus grounded into the 3-2-3 double play. Luckily J.P. Arencibia was able to follow that up with a 2 out single to RF to score 2 runs. Thos would be the only two runs the Jays would score again until extra innings.
On the mound Ricky Romero was fantastic and it is too bad that the team couldn't get him another W. There has been a lot of talk the last two years of whether or not Ricky Romero was an ace, or just a very good pitcher (who cares, but I digress). You hear a lot of talk about a true ace of the staff will get wins, well if that is the case over the last 12 starts for Romero the Jays are 11-1, Romero himself is 8-1 over those same 12. Overall Romero threw 9IP with only 6Hs, 5Ks and 0BBs, the problem was 2 of those 6 hits went over the fence. Casey Janssen came out for the 10th and was fantastic, things look bad for a second when Wells opened up the innings with a double, but a sac bunt, strikeout and ground out later got the Jays out of the inning and secured the win.
At the plate Arencibia and Johnson had 2 hits a piece, Thames had 3, Bautista and Encarnacion each had 1 apiece. Thames, Bautista, Encarnacion and Lawrie each took a walk. There were a few problems again on the basepaths. The Jays were caught stealing twice, on the season the team is running at about 70% (I think it is about 72% IIRC) and lately it has definitely seemed like more caught then safe. There also seemed to be yet another missed hit and run sign. I asked in the game thread but it bears repeating, just how damned difficult is the teams hit and run sign? The team had a bunch of help in the tenth scoring the winning run. The lead off batter Mike McCoy reached on an error before getting moved to 2nd on a single by Thames. Jose Bautista grounded into a force out at 2nd putting runners on the corners with 1 away. The Angels then pulled Hunter in from the OF to have a 5 man drawn in infield, with Lind on the plate he grounds towards first and Hunter grabs the ball. Instead of trying for the double play he tries to gun the runner out at home. Not a terrible move because with a good throw McCoy was out, but he throws wide of the plate and the Jays win.
There were a few decisions in game that made people in the game thread cringe, especially in the ninth inning with 2 runners on and Brett Lawrie at the plate he was asked to bunt. He did so successfully moving the runners over to 2nd and 3rd but I really hate that move. I know its easy to say that in hindsight because it didn't work but I think I have made my feelings on this matter clear before now anyways.
Jays of the Day: Romero .451, Janssen .143, Johnson .132, Thames .115, Arencibia .103
Suckage: Rasmus -.241, Molina -.209
77 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Is there anyone here who actually likes the decision to have Lawrie bunt there at all? Would anyone defend that move?
It seems to me like we fans have, generally speaking, come to a consensus which states that bunting is rarely a good idea and is not the move that gives you the best chance of winning. But for whatever reason, baseball managers have not come to that conclusion on the same scale. I just don’t understand why that is, and it frustrates me to no end.
"Who are you and how the hell did you get in here?"
"I'm a locksmith... and i'm a locksmith."
on aggregate
bunting doesn’t do much one way or another. bunting with an above-average hitter, though, is just silly – he has a good chance of getting a hit (and not just with hindsight, this should be obvious ex ante as well)
Total Internet points: 10 000
Has this actually been studied? I mean, we can all name the good things that can happen when a hitter swings away (getting a hit), and we can all name the bad things (DP). And we can all name the good things and bad things that can happen when the player attempts to bunt. But has this been studied with a computer simulation, including all the odds of the various things happening? If so, which of the two approaches — bunting and not bunting — leads to a run? (And if not, then our opinions are not justified, one way or the other.)
by DavidLondon on Sep 19, 2011 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions
of course it has been studied, and extensively
sacrifice bunting almost never improves the team’s chances of winning, unless the pitcher is batting. In certain situations, late in the game, where one run is all you need to win (like, tie game bottom of the 9th), a sac bunt can help if it gets the runner to third with one out. I tend to agree with Tom, though, with runners at first and second, the bunt seems like a bad idea.
I do remember calling a JMac squeeze and being super-excited when Mac got the bunt down. that’s probably the only time I’ve ever been excited about sac bunting. I do like bunting for a hit, and squeezes when poor hitters are up, and that’s about it.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
I think Manny Acta took a page from that book
He rarely calls the bunt on in games, and I think he doesn’t do so because of the reasons you just stated.
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
If you are interested in a bit of a read
Basically agrees with what Hugo says below: bunting almost always results in less runs, however in most situations, they typically increase the chance that you score a single run. I actually agree with bunting in that situation tonight, as the numbers back up that it was the right play when 1 run will win you the game.
by Playoffs!!!!1 on Sep 19, 2011 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
right
it can be beneficial when one run is as valuable as multiple runs (ie – when it is likely to be or hopefully the last chance you bat) – but I still don’t like the idea when it takes away a plate appearance from a strong hitter like Lawrie
Total Internet points: 10 000
While normally I would agree with you
There are a few good reasons for putting the bunt play on with Lawrie:
Only one run is needed, so trading the possibility of scoring multiple runs for an increased chance of scoring one run makes sense.
Lawrie is fast, so there’s a chance he could get a hit or error out of it.
This is a development year, so having Lawrie bunt in a game situation is a good learning situation without sacrificing a potential playoff position
The fact that Lawrie might bunt goes into the opposing team’s scouting report, which means other teams might play a step in the next time this situation comes up, which increases his chances of punching a ball through the infield if he swings instead of bunts.
Terrific. Thanks for the link — very interesting. Okay, I agree with you — the bunt in the situation tonight was justified. This is not usually the case, but in this particular instance, it was, at least on the basis of scoring a single run. Of course, one must factor in the fact that Lawrie was doing the bunting, and Molina was the next batter. In this case, it might not be so clear. But then it’s a question of opinion, and not fact. Thanks a lot.
by DavidLondon on Sep 20, 2011 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, it's technically always "opinion"
which is why the bunt continues to be used so frequently. Managers say things like, “I went with my gut” all the time. The reason it is frustrating as a fan isn’t simply because it decreases the team’s chance of winning (whether it did last night or not aside, talking about bunting as a general strategy here, particularly sacrifice bunting by the number two hitter and things like that), it’s because — unless you look at huge samples in aggregate — it’s very hard to tell that it decreases your chance of winning.
Since it’s hard to tell, managers are free to say that they’re bunting on a case-by-case basis and only when they’re of the opinion that it is going to help the team win.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
If a manager never bunts, they also open themselves up (like Gaston) to criticism that they never “do” anything and so aren’t very good managers.
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Sep 20, 2011 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Damned if you do
Damned if you don’t
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
This is what it's all about.
Managers want to be seen to be managing. It gives the illusion that they are in control of the game.
by Defense Counts! on Sep 20, 2011 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
"opinion"
All I meant by “opinion” is the following. The stats show that, in general, bunting decreases the probability of scoring runs. The one exception is if all you need is one run, and a successful bunt will put a runner on 3B with fewer than two outs (last night’s situation). It is therefore statistically justified to follow these results — never bunt, except in that one situation. If you choose not to follow these results, it cannot be justified on the basis of statistics — it must be “opinion” (i.e. a gut feeling).
by DavidLondon on Sep 20, 2011 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Not really
because those “statistics” are not accounting for a slew of things that could change the results (who is pitching, who is batting, the defence). So, no, following the strategy that gives the most fangraphs WPA by rote is not necessarily actually the “statistically” strategy.
To actually determine the best statistical strategy, you’d need to account for all the factors that are unique to the situation (as described above).
1. batter — As hugo already said, with very poor hitters or pitchers, bunting may actually increase the likelihood of winning because there is a good chance that those players make wholly unproductive outs anyway.
2. pitcher — With a terrible pitcher on the mound, there’s a much better chance of getting a hit or a walk, which also makes bunting a worse option.
3. infield defence — With an infield defence that plays the bunt well (think something like Shaun Marcum pitching, Yadier Molina catching, Scott Rolen playing third, and Todd Helton at first), there’s a much lower probability of getting the bunt down, which makes bunting a worse option.
Unless the manager has actually statistically accounted for these factors (and even if he has, he’s likely done a poor job), he is going with his opinion.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Okay, fair enough. But this also means that the critics (i.e. us) are also going with their opinions.
Pushed to the limit, this applies to any bunt. But it is probably reasonable to say that, in general, bunting is a poor strategy. What I’m objecting to is when people say that bunting is never correct. (And, as we have seen above, there are several reasonably-informed people who do think that the bunt with Lawrie was a good move.)
by DavidLondon on Sep 20, 2011 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
The reason I don’t like it, is that even in ideal situations it gives you one opportunity to get a sac at the plate.
That being said I do recognize that it gives the other opportunities such as wild pitches etc etc,
There is probably a ton of data out there on how often a run scores after a sac fly. I really don’t have the time or the drive to seriously look into it though.
I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...
What I’m objecting to is when people say that bunting is never correct.
I doubt there are many people saying this – and I’ve certainly not encountered them. Even when people phrase it this way, my assumption is that they’re implicitly excluding, for example, pitcher sac bunts.
With Lawrie, arguments can be made on both sides of the issue. My personal opinion would be against intentionally making an out with a better hitter in order to put the bat in the hands of a worse hitter is generally a bad idea, but I can’t fault a bunt too much in that situation.
One thing I can’t figure out is the most useful bunts are squeezes because they actually score a run. Why are teams so willing to sacrifice an out to try to move runners to second and third but so much less willing to sacrifice an out to try to get him home when the force is off? Obviously a squeeze is riskier but it is also a much bigger payoff. Either way if the bunt fails the lead runner is going to be out.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
I'd think it has to do with an implicit assumption
that squeezes have a lower success-rate than other bunts.
Obviously, if the batter can’t get the bat on the ball in a suicide squeezes the runner is almost certainly out (though in the cases of wild pitches, etc., he’d be safe).
In the cases of safety squeezes, I’d guess that it is probably somewhat easier to make the play at the plate (charing a ball, fielding it, and throwing forward, instead of charging, fielding it, spinning, and throwing to another base), though I wonder if the runner might not get a better jump off third.
Do you have any idea what the success-rates for bunting in different situations would be? You make a great point because teams really do stand so much more to gain from getting a squeeze across rather than simply getting a baserunner from first to second or second to third, so I’d think that should at least partially (perhaps, wholly?) offset the cost of more frequent failure in most situations.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Personally I'd rather have let Lawrie swing.
It seems kind of funny to me, but one thing that Jays Talk fans got on Cito about was that he hated the bunt. Yet when he let them swing, many of those people (usually on Jays Talk) would shriek about how it ended badly (for some reason it usually involved a Rios AB) and wondered maybe if he should have bunted instead (trade one out for two) with the benefit of hindsight.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Sep 20, 2011 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions
well I guess the protected pick was too much to ask for...
might as well run the table.
Yep at this point, its pretty tough to get a protected unless
we go total fail for the remainder of the season and by then there are still like 2-3 teams ahead. So the chances are slim
Total Internet Points: 185000 (Thank you to JMac for making me a winner in a bet)
New Official Internet Points Bank Owner (Unlike Kirby the scam)
Based on Beeston's comments about reluctance to ever go more than 5 years on a FA
I’m thinking that the Jays won’t be big players in the FA market this year. My view is that AA will kick the tires of the various ones they’d like to have but not much will come of it so I wouldn’t worry too much about getting a protected pick (but then again the Jays will face the Rays in Tampa and bad horrible things do happen there for the Jays.)
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Sep 20, 2011 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I think we have to go 4 games under 500 to get the protected pick,
and at this rate, I think we’re 9 for our last 13… we’re never gonna get it :(
I agree with the bunt tonight as well though since kelly johnson beat out a bunt attempt earlier (I wasn’t watching the game, checked through gameday) I thought with lawrie’s speed, he can possibly beat out a throw as well. With that said, I usually don’t like bunts either but in this specific case, it seemed like the right move to just get 1 run in (all we needed was a sac fly from you Jose!)
If the Angels had done anything right in the 10th inning...
… such as turn two on Bautista… the Jays don’t score.
Which would have meant the decision to bunt in the 9th didn’t work, and the decision to swing away in the 10th didn’t wor, but in the end it did, so blah.
Sometimes things work, sometimes things don’t, but without seeing any data, I would be inclined to agree that bunting a runner over to third when there are no outs is your best chance to score a single run in an inning.
I know it's a fuzzy picture but I swear he actually exists!
Here’s the first confirmed photo on BBB of Brian Jeroloman with the Blue Jays walking with Lord Farquhar out of the bullpen after the game (Farquhar was doing a side throwing session)
Follow me @BBBMinorLeaguer | 2011 Jays record while in attendance: 11-12 (.478)
by Minor Leaguer on Sep 20, 2011 12:56 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I see Bigfoot!
"The AL Beast" was an intelligent pun the first time it was used. That time was not at any point in the last 5 years. JUST STOP.
2012/Offseason-related FanPost tally since September 1: 7
No that's Pat Hentgen
Follow me @BBBMinorLeaguer | 2011 Jays record while in attendance: 11-12 (.478)
by Minor Leaguer on Sep 20, 2011 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions
I hear it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imLid4WBwOg (song starts at 1:48)
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Hmm... must be aliens!
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
What's this reference?
Follow me @BBBMinorLeaguer | 2011 Jays record while in attendance: 11-12 (.478)
by Minor Leaguer on Sep 20, 2011 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s an unintentionally hilarious series on the History Channel.
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
Doesn't this guy own a mirror?
WTH?
The 3 signs you may be reading my sig:
1) You're reading it, and you've gotten this far.
2) You've made it to #2 and you're still reading.
3) It's official you've read my sig and now you'll never get those 10 seconds of your life back.
Twist ending: you are dead, a ghost haunting a15 year old boy who sees dead people!
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Sep 20, 2011 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
He's hiding his antennae
Follow me @BBBMinorLeaguer | 2011 Jays record while in attendance: 11-12 (.478)
by Minor Leaguer on Sep 20, 2011 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Oh shucks
I thought it was the man in white!
by GettinGiggy on Sep 20, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
No i refuse to believe Jeroloman exist, he will always be a fake minor league player
until he possibly get in a game(im predicting the last game but i so wont put money on it)
Total Internet Points: 185000 (Thank you to JMac for making me a winner in a bet)
New Official Internet Points Bank Owner (Unlike Kirby the scam)
Request
Can any of the logic junkies or statistically-inclined people ’round here please check over this post and tell me whether my analysis is reasonable given the nature of “replacement level” statistics and if the conclusion is logically sound?
Thanks
"The AL Beast" was an intelligent pun the first time it was used. That time was not at any point in the last 5 years. JUST STOP.
2012/Offseason-related FanPost tally since September 1: 7
I don't think the WA0 really makes sense, since a 0 WA0 wouldn't actually play in the majors.
But I’m of the opinion that 5 WAR over 500 PA is better than 5 WAR over 600 PA. I understand that both players contributed the same amount assuming that the 100 remaining PA for the first player is taken by a replacement-level player, but talent level-wise, the first player has the edge. Assuming that the first player isn’t injury prone and only plays 120 games a year, he’s clearly the better player.
Sad, Drunk, And Poorly
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - JL
usually players aren't replaced by replacement level players though
as we discussed in the other thread. nearly every team (especially the Jays) could move an asset or two to get, say, a 1.5 WAR/600 PA player to fill in which ultimately makes the 500 PA player objectively better
Total Internet points: 10 000
Sure
my point was that I like WAR/PA better than pure WAR, as long as it’s a reasonable number of PA
Sad, Drunk, And Poorly
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - JL
Missed most of the game
But man, the Angels were just awful in the 10th.
I would have nodded in agreement if Pat Tabler or Buck said the Angels didn’t play the game the “right” way. That was just sloppy stupid D. It was great for the Jays though.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Sep 20, 2011 1:22 AM EDT reply actions
What was funny, was that earlier in the game they said playing against the Angels was like they had extra fielders because they were so good.
Poetic justice!
I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...
They did have a extra infielder, just didnt work out lol
Total Internet Points: 185000 (Thank you to JMac for making me a winner in a bet)
New Official Internet Points Bank Owner (Unlike Kirby the scam)
Jays tried so hard to lose
But in the end the Angels wanted to lose more, I guess.
Can the Jays stop the totally idiotic baserunning and bunting?
John Farrell and AA
were very upfront in the off season about how they wanted this team to operate.
They told us we are going to be a team who does it all.
Small ball, stealing bases, the hit and run. That is who we will be when we win it all!
Last night Pat said the Angels are the ‘best’ at going first to third. Well, we want to be the best, and that takes doing it…..get in the habit of putting the pressure on, and keeping it on.
Tampa stole 11 bases vs the Sawks this weeked, out of 14 attempts. They kept the pressure on the pitcher and the defense. And that is how Farrell sees it ….helping us Win.
Like it or not, they told you to expect it.
Just looked up the numbers and they are surprisingly close
TBR – 144SB 59CS – 70%
TOR – 126SB 50CS – 71%
I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...
Not disputing the better part though… unfortunately.
I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...
and Tampa's fangraphs speed rating as a team
is 5.2 to the Jays’ 5.1.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
How much is it if Rajai Davis is taken out of the equation? :P
How much is it if Jose Molina is taken out of the equation?
Follow me @BBBMinorLeaguer | 2011 Jays record while in attendance: 11-12 (.478)
by Minor Leaguer on Sep 20, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Davis would be tops in the league
if he had the plate appearances to qualify
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
somewhat surprisingly
the Jays are 5th in the league in Fangraphs speed as a team.
Fangraphs Speed is a function of stolen base%, stolen base attempts, triples percentage, and runs scored percentage.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
in the majors, that should be, not just in the AL
okay, I’ll stop responding to myself now
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Ahhh the Jays did get a bunch of triples since Lawrie came up it seems
Follow me @BBBMinorLeaguer | 2011 Jays record while in attendance: 11-12 (.478)
by Minor Leaguer on Sep 20, 2011 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
While I can't think of a better way to do that than you have
it should be noted that using speed score (which increases with stolen base attempts) to determine whether or not a team should be trying to steal is somewhat tautological.
Unfortunately, the most reasonable way to score speed is to use stolen bases (which can’t be done without also using stolen base attempts), since they’re probably the best combination of large enough sample and heavy-enough reliance on speed.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
right
that’s why I thought speed score was reasonable (though I agree with you imperfect), since it factors in three other variables beyond just stolen base attempts to try to give an overall picture of good baserunning.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
what about BSR?
Sad, Drunk, And Poorly
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - JL
wow, 3rd in MLB
though far behind the Reds and Rangers
Sad, Drunk, And Poorly
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - JL
The Rangers are ridiculous, actually
Sad, Drunk, And Poorly
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - JL
I expect BBWAA voters to be stupid
should we be happy with that? shouldn’t we try to fix that?
Sad, Drunk, And Poorly
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - JL
OT slightly, is anyone just the slightest bit concerned about Rasmus?
Or should we be calling his Dad anytime soon? He hasn’t shown much at the plate to justify $2.5 odd million in arbitration.
The fact is… our “core” lineup has been less than advertised, and frequently gets shut down by both good and mediocre pitchers alike.
Escobar didn’t light the world on fire in the remainder of the season with us when he came over, he was better but IIRC wasn’t spectacular.
There was also an injury in there for Rasmus too. I know first impressions are hard to erase but I think we have to try and look forward. Am I worried? Hell yes, but then again I worry about a lot of things about everyone of our players.
I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...
You took the words out of my mouth
It’s a little soon to panic about Rasmus.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
I'm not concerned
Rasmus has the whole offseason and spring training to make adjustments. It is very hard to make adjustments on the fly in the middle of the season, especially for such a young player.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
he's also adjusting to a new league
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
Im writing this year off for Rasmus with the injury and issues
If next year is the same then i will be concern
Total Internet Points: 185000 (Thank you to JMac for making me a winner in a bet)
New Official Internet Points Bank Owner (Unlike Kirby the scam)
Not the slightest bit concerned
He will figure it out. Give him all of next season at least.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
not in the slightest
Sad, Drunk, And Poorly
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - JL
I don't think Jeroloman is beefing too much
Getting 70 odd gees plus meal money to watch baseball for a month ain’t bad, particularly when you’re used to making 2 grand a month or so in the minors.
Really nice reward for these kids. Class move by the Jays.
There's also a chance he makes the Jays next year as a backup catcher
In that case, I think they want to have him work with the big club in practices and get familiar with the pitching staff. They didn’t play JPA much either doing his callup last year but it doesn’t mean they aren’t learning.
Of course, the Jays might also sign a veteran backup this offseason too. Still, Jeroloman is on the 40 man and it doesn’t hurt to get him used to the big club if there is an injury next year to one of the catchers.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
I agree, though the thing with Jeroloman is he hasnt played once
i found out he was called up on Aug 23 which is almost a month now. He hasnt played in the Jays blowout or opposing team blowout. It just weird, its like the team forgot he is on the team. I wonder what is longest time period for a Rookie to get called up and on the bench till his debut.
Total Internet Points: 185000 (Thank you to JMac for making me a winner in a bet)
New Official Internet Points Bank Owner (Unlike Kirby the scam)
Yea I want to know about that too
But my traditional sources don’t have that function. Maybe someone can call up MLBPA! The team definitely has not forgotten him. His job right now is to be out in the bullpen catching all the young September call ups who need side throwing sessions.
Follow me @BBBMinorLeaguer | 2011 Jays record while in attendance: 11-12 (.478)
by Minor Leaguer on Sep 20, 2011 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bluebird Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
