Olerud363

But was Pound really that involved in Tour de France testing?? I wasn't aware of that. He seemed to be as critical of their testing procedures, calling out Lance Armstrong years ago.

If and when society changes the laws then we can have that debate. But currently (most) performance enhancers are illegal. The general rule is that these guys can take whatevers legal in society. There is a gray area in mediaclly controlled substances. But generally waivers are given if the player has a medical need.

OK. Fair enough. Just have to hope that the constant border crossing doesn't put our boys at a disadvantage. You feel confident they have enough sources in Toronto that they aren't disadvantaged compared to teams in the states?? I'm not. But maybe I have no reason to worry about this. Maybe there is a Toronto Biogenesis chapter that I'm not aware of.. or maybe it's easy to get the stuff across. I don't know.

I think the Dick Pound guy said it was a complete joke. I've heard that the only real way to do it is put an indepentent group like the international doping comittee in charge of the program. When you get down to it, if you really want a clean sport they would do that. They don't want to. Which shows they want the impression of a testing process but not a real testing process.

Exactly. In the extreme of this argument you would have guys doing everything. Look at what Bonds became. He was apparently doing every class of enhancement, roids for strength, hgh, epo for endurance, insulin (not sure why), amphetamines. If you have no testing then they can go for the classics, testosterone, winstrol, hgh, amphetamines, then pot and sleeping pills to calm them down after. Add in the designer stuff and it would be quite the freak show. Imagine a Barry Bonds starting all that he did at 18... and why wouldn't you. Get to the majors quick, hit 1000 homers (if you live long enough).

I basically agree with you in that I said the present system is not fair to A-rod and Braun. Nobody is saying test every day. But apparently the 20 biogenesis guys were doing it for 2 or 3 years and two of them got caught. So does that mean that if you juice you have only a 10% chance of getting caught over 2 or 3 years?? Need to find a testing protocol where they can catch atleast half the people. That should be enough to deter the others.

The problem is that one can never be sure what reality is. Maybe the Jays are actually the only clean team. Perhaps because they play in Canada for extended periods it's harder to maintain a juicing program. I mean they'd have to find a local Toronto guy because it would be harder to get it shipped across the border. So the last 20 years they've been clean, or relatively clean and that explains the relative lack of sucess. Or maybe the Jays are dirty as anyone, EE and Bautista are pumped up with it all... Bad-Lind/Good-Lind, Bad-Wells/good-wells, and bad-Hill, good-Hill is all explained by the times they chose to experiment with enhancement... I'm not saying either of those scenarios are remotely true, but in a game that is "partially" dirty it becomes easy to speculate on such scenarios, and hard to trust anything. So it has to be either completely dirty, or completely clean... or atleast as clean as possible. The problem with completely dirty is it opens it up to stuff you wouldn't put in a horse.

Great post. It is really a stupid thing to say "who cares". They either have to eliminate testing completely, make it a free for all with every one completely roided up on everything or they have to continuously work to police it better. The current testing doesn't seem to be working. I mean out of the 20 biogenesis guys how many tested positive?? 3?? So at that rate there has to be an untold number of players still juicing... or atleast we can't be sure there isn't. Only a fraction of users are getting caught. So more has to be done. The present system is actually unfair to Braun and A-rod. They are caught because their dealer got caught, while other players dealers haven't got caught. Or atleast we can't be sure. They need to make the testing better. I don't know how. More tests?? Better tests??

"Most likely"????? I agree with you there. In that Thole is only 26 and could still surprise. D'Arnaud is 24 only 2 years younger, but more of a power record. There is always the possibility that Thole could have a better career then D'Arnaud. Catchers develop late sometimes. It is much more likely that D'arnaud is better. I commend you for wording things in such a way that leaves some uncertainty. Rarely seen on this board. There is a chance someone will bash your head in for this. IE "Are you a moron?? Scouts love D'arnaud and he projects as a 20 homer a year guy. A potential 2nd tier all star. Thole has no power and will be lucky to hit .250. Thole has allready failed at the mlb level and player never come back from something like that. Give your head a shake. There was a reason the Mets just threw Thole in."

Yan Gomes career - .(197 PA) .244 .281 .478 .758 J.P. career - (1108 PA) .222 .269 .436 .705 Yan Gomes sucks. We get it. He's about to fall apart because of his horrible swing. Questions Why does our catcher have a career OPS 50 points less than a guy who has the worst swing in the history of baseball??

That's not quite what I think... I explained this in another post... I suspect Farrell doesn't spend much time at all working with the hitters. My impression is that as a former pitching coach, and a former pitcher he prefers working with the pitchers. My impression is that Farrell has some meetings with the GM going over the type of hitters he'd like, then he has some meetings with the hitting coach going over the general approach he'd like to see. Adam Lind is quoted as saying that Farrell and Murphy had opposite philosaphies. I suspect Farrell wasn't able to get what he wanted from the GM and hitting coach in Toronto. Some will say "well why didn't Farrell fire Murphy??". That leads to larger questions. Did he even have the power to fire Murphy?? If not why did he take the job?? Well manager jobs don't come along often. He may have had a much better impression of AA and Murphy as he was interviewing but the reality of working with them on a day to day basis was different. Farrell can only ask the GM to get him hitters and a hitting coach who are able to execute a high on base percentage approach.... In Toronto only 1/3 were completely on board with on base percentage. In Boston it's 3/3.

Today: June 5th. Farrell 36-23 .348 Jays 24-34 .316 So it may be captain obvious. This may be a thread that everyone hates. But this is an issue I've looked at for 20 years. For 20 years I've hoped that this would turn around. For 20 years I wanted to follow an organization that has a good on base percentage. The Farrell thing is really frustrating to me. There have been a handful of people that I thought could turn this around. In 99 I had huge hopes for Jim Fergosi. Fergosi oversaw a great Philly offense in the early 90s. One of the first successful "beer league slugger" teams I remember. And Fergosi produced. In 99 the Jays had an offense on the rise. 6th in on base percentage. But something happened between Fergosi and Sarge. I don't know what. All of a sudden Cito was hitting coach and immediately things went backwards. The offensive levels in 2000 were so high no one noticed. The offense seemed good compared to historical standards but it was mediocre compared to 2000 standards. Another step back in 2001 and people noticed. Cito fired. Then J.P. Riccardi gave me hope. Mixed results. Good offenses in 2003 and 2006 but not consistent. The result is somehow Cito is back. Things quickly tank. Then John Farrell. A smart progressive guy from the sox. Says the right things. But no results. And his hitting coach doesn't believe in obp??? wtf. Maybe Farrell doesn't really believe in on base percentage?? But Farrell goes to the sox and he is everything I hoped for. A smart progressive manager leading a great organization to a great season. His offense has a great on base percentage. I know your all sick of it. But it's frustrating. John Farrell and the red sox fans are living the dream (again) while we are a laughing stock (again).

OK. It's obviously brought out some stupid people. The Yankees are not really that good this year and these people don't quite get that. The reason the Yankees are better then the Jays is pitching. The Jays offense is better. The Jays are 20 runs better on offense, the Yankees 70 runs better on defense. The overall difference is 50 runs. All (Edit: much) of it explained by the differences between Sabathia/Kuroda, and Dickey/Buerhle. Last year according to bbref Sabathia/Kuroda were worth 9 WAR, and Dickey/Buehrle 9.3 WAR. Their ages are comparable, though Dickey/Buehrle are about 1 year older. This year Dickey/Buehrle are at -0.2 WAR, Sabathia/Kuroda at about 3.2. So that's 3.4 wins there. A couple of wins is luck. Then there are little differences all over the place obviously. Phelps/Petite are healthier and outperforming Morrow/Johnson. The yankees emergency starter is some kid Nuno who is almost a win better then Ramon Ortiz. It's a complicate issue not explained by "clutchiness" or "the will to win" or some garbage. The real questions are. 1. Could the Yankees get a better performance out of Buerle and Dickey? 2. Could the Yankees get Ricky Romero on track or even avoid the meltdown? 3. Could the Yankees get more out of Morrow/Johnson?? 4. Could the Yankees do a better job getting guys like Nolin ready for his first start and avoiding Ramon Ortiz?? On offense 1. Could the Yankees keep J.P. Arencibia's k/bb ratio sane?? (see Middlebrooks W., good organizations can have fustrating guys). 2. Could the Yankees get anything from Izturis/Boni?? 3. Could the Yankees get more from Lawrie/Rasmus?? Would getting these guys in a better mental state help them?? If so could the Yankees get them in a better mental state?

One guy who replied to the original thread seemed to say the same thing... but a little to troll like... claiming ridiculous things like Kawasaki would have 20 homeruns. The question is difficult. I mean if you just sent all the players to the Yankees or Red Sox as is would they improve at all?? That's one version of the question. There is another slightly different version where hypothetically if the Yankees or Red Sox acquired the same player in the same state the Blue Jays did would the player be better?? For example if Lind or Hill were drafted by the Red Sox would they of had a better career?? With more seasons at the top end of their performance range?? If Hutch or Drabek were developed by the red sox would they be healthier?? Would Morrow and Romero (assuming they were aquired at the same stage) be more consistent?? For guys like Buerhle, and Dickey would they avoid a couple of months of 5+ era if they were acquired by the Red sox/yanks/rays?? Or is that just something that would of happened anywhere??

Was this thread closed?? Why?? This is actually a good question. Can coaching and organizational philosaphy make a difference in player performance?? Some claim it did for Bautista. We've seen Aaron Hill go from horrible to good in one year. Why did this happen?? Luck?? Coaching?? There are a huge number of variables that could make one organization better then another even with the same roster. This was just on science daily.... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130531105506.htm Fatigue and sleep linked to plate discipline. Could the Red Sox be ahead of the curve so to say on this?? Maybe they have curfew rules, advanced sleeping pills, lights out on the plane rules or something??? There are a million reasons why one organization could do better than another even with the same roster. It's atleast a topic worthy of discussion.

' I've been on the board for 5 or 6 years and believe it or not there have been some spirited debates about this. Spirited in the sense that it is not obvious that everyone "knows" that getting on base is an effective way to win ballgames. The most recent "debate" was last year by a guy called "grant77" who I believe I saw show his face here a couple of times. Grant77 was a huge defender of Cito and Murphy had all kinds of cherry picked data showing that the Blue Jays offense was over-effecient. And that the conventional run projection formulas didn't work for the blue jays. That the Jays brainiacs had designed a unique .315 on base percentage offense that could score 800 runs. The debate reached it's climax at around late July last year, when the Jays were near the top in runs scored but near the bottom in on base percentage. Some of us thought the offense was bound to collapse, others thought that the offense was one of the best in baseball. So ofcourse it collapsed but right around the Bautista injury.... so everybody who thought the offense was good had an escape clause. The offense collapsed because of injury. Thus I feel the need to follow the offense through the year. To keep track of how our low on base percentage offense is doing with a healthy Bautista.

That's not fair. I've only been updating it once a week lately. Not like in late April when I was updating it hourly.... And I think it's very interesting that Farrell has been able to run a very effective offence in Boston. Whether he deserves credit for it or not on his arrival they've transformed (back) to a patient offense. On a related note the fact that I only update this weekly might be a sign that the season really is over. When the team is in trouble fans go on and on about it being over and their own pet peeve issue (Arencibia, Gibbons, on base percentage, whatever they don't like). When it really is over interest tends to die down.

Today is June 3rd 2013 Farrell - 35-23 .345 Jays - 24-33 .317 Still in a holding pattern. Every day it gets later and it becomes less likely that the early season story will change. The winners get to write the history book. That's just the way it works. John Farrell will get to write the story. A draft is allready written and the ink is drying. Things could change... but it's getting later. The John Farrell story (as of June 3rd 2013). "John Farrell was/is a great and kind man. A long with Brian Butterfield he was the only competent member of the Toronto Blue Jays management team. After repeated philosiphical differences with Toronto management he was traded to Boston in Dec 2012. In retrospect this was the most important move of the 2012/13 offseason. Farrell is a former pitcher and has a simple philosaphy for the offense. He has one meeting with the GM and says "Get me some guys who can get the F' on base". Then he has one meeting in March with the hitting coach "Get the guys the F on base". He then ignores the offense and concentrates on helping the pitchers (he has more expertese on this). In Toronto he was forced to babysit and constantly argue with the hitting Coach (who didn't believe in on base percentage). This affected the pitching because he was not able to fully focus on helping the pitchers. In Boston Farrell is able to trust his GM and hitting coach. He know the boys will get on base so he is able to concentrate on helping the pitchers. In November 2013 John Farrell will be accepting his manager of the year award with a smug look on his face. In April of 2014 he will recieve his world series ring with the same smug look." I'm not saying the above story is 100% true. Just saying that the winners get to write history, this is one possible version they might write.

We have 2 old junkballers who are pitching about as old and junkie as we could of imagined... two guys who are probably physically broken (Morrow and Johnson)... one guy who has had the single greatest mental melt down in history... what else... the other guy got a bump on the head... that was bad luck admittedly... but he wasn't that good anyway... Then we have our other 6 starters that we've had to use, who have been as 7th through 12th starters are apt to be.

I disagree here. In 87 there was the collapse of all collapses, but interest was high all year, ticket sales were robust, the health of the franchise was strong. In 1987 there was no thought that this was a fundamentally flawed franchise. It was a great franchise that had a bad week. In 1987 the wallets hadn't opened yet. The Jays were Tampa Bay. It was a tremendous time. You could look at Pat Gillick with pride. A man to be respected... not a fat ninja. Everybody raved at "the blue jay way". They produced more young players then anyone else. In 1987 they had a 25 year old Fernandez... Bell, Moseby, and Barfield were 27. They had a 23 year old platoon of Cecil Fielder and McGriff... a 23 year old platoon destined to hit 800 homeruns and win 4 homer titles. Jimmy Key was 26. Dave Stieb was only 29... and he was viewed as an old man possibly near the end. After that it didn't work out exactly with that group.. but that huge base of talent was reconfigured into the 92/93 group. At which point young players Olerud (23/24) and Alomar (24/25) and Guzman (25ish) and Hentgen (25ish) became key. Once upon a time it was produce as many young players as you can... don't worry about a collapse, because there'll be a 10 year window with this philosaphy.

Wouldn't you say this has actually been a weakness in the end. Rios, Hill, Lind, Romero, Dickey, Morrow (maybe), Dusty. All signed to long term contracts... Then have bad performance and have their values drop to nothing.

715 runs allowed and 715 against = 81 wins.

Just checked out the baseball musings lineup tool (suggested by North of 49), designed a 715 run team, then cranked up one of the players on base percentage by 50 points. According to the tool the team then scored 738 runs. Then found a pythagaran calculator and plugged in 738 runs scored and 715 against... which gives 83 or 84 wins (they supply results from 2 models or something).

cool tool.

One can find teams from the 90s and 2000s that hit like "career" Bautista does. They scored about 950 runs a year. Not sure how many runs a team hitting like 2010-2013 Bautista would get. That would be a .280 .400 .600 geam. I'm guessing 1100 runs.