derosathrowing

I used an exclamation point here, but there’s really nothing particularly exciting about this story.

For the sake of completeness, though, let’s go through it…

Sometime between August 1st and last night, Mark DeRosa, like practically every other player in the Majors (save Joe Mauer, who will be spared the indignity because of a whole bunch of confused Twins fans), was placed on revocable (i.e. they can be revoked) trade waivers.

We understand how this works, yes? Guys who get placed on waivers and don’t get claimed may be traded during the month of August (that’s why you’ll sometimes see July 31st referred to as the “non-waiver” trade deadline). Occasionally, though, players do get claimed. When that happens the player’s current club has three options: 1) they can pull the player back from waivers and keep him, 2) they can work out a trade with the club who claimed him, using the fact that they can pull the player back off waivers as leverage to get something in return, or 3) they can let the claiming club take the player, as well as the entirety of his contract– as the Jays did when the White Sox put a claim in on Alex Rios four years ago.

So, inevitably Bautista and Encarnacion will go on waivers, someone will put a claim on those terrific contracts, and the Jays will pull them back. Shit, the Jays would likely even pull back Mark Buehrle if he gets claimed. The whole thing just isn’t a big deal.

Yet here we are, with breathless reports last night from ol’ Kenny Ken Ken about how Mark DeRosa had been claimed by someone. Or… maybe not breathless. And it’s not exactly like Rosenthal’s hyping something up– he’s just doing his job. It’s just… well… here’s how it all unfolded:

6:49 PM ET:

10:13 PM ET:

And there you have it. Most of it, at least.

DeRosa likely isn’t going anywhere for some scrub PTBNL (as he’d surely only fetch) or for a modicum of salary relief. He’s had, in a small sample, a resurgence as a lefty-masher this year (.362 wOBA in 108 PA), and has some defensive versatility. meaning that with a $750K option for 2014 he may just stick around. On those merits alone, that’s a fairly defensible position for the Jays to be taking– especially with the alternative being giving him away for nothing. Of course, there’s also matter of his being some kind of clubhouse wizard who is going to impart a winning mentality to every teammate he greets with his presence, which, of course didn’t quite happen as planned this year because… y’know… it’s all a bunch of bullshit and talented baseball players win games, not happy clubhouse ghosts.

This exchange has pretty much got it:

But hey, he’s likable. That’s cool. I mean, if the 25th man on team’s roster is going to some fungible fill-in with one nice platoon split and the ability to not embarrass himself at a couple of positions anyway, I can’t fault a team for wanting him to be someone who doesn’t consistently make teammates choke on their own scorn. Let’s just not keep pretending that by sheer force of personality he can turn a bad team into a good one, because if that kind of clubhouse stuff actually matters at all, it matters so microscopically slightly compared to, y’know, talent as to be entirely inconsequential.

Comments (147)

  1. So, because they’re on waivers, there’s a chance we’ll still see guys like Oliver or Janssen traded?

  2. Remember when resident expert wilner told us the jays would never let rios go for nothing?

    • Remember when you were so butthurt by something Wilner said at some point that you bothered to give a shit about this four years later?

      • Amen to this. People have it out for Wilner so hard, waiting for him to say something they can roast him for later. Someone probably got a tattoo saying “Remember when you said 40-40 was not going to happen” over a Jays logo.

        Enjoy your miserable stinking lives.

  3. So who was it?

    AL

    Seattle 53 61 .465
    Toronto 53 61 .465
    LA Angels 51 62 .451
    Minnesota 49 62 .441
    Chi White Sox 43 69 .384
    Houston 37 76 .327 (Holy FUCK they are bad)

    NL

    Washington 54 60 .474
    NY Mets 51 60 .459
    San Diego 52 62 .456
    Colorado 52 63 .452
    Philadelphia 51 62 .451
    Chi Cubs 50 63 .442
    San Francisco 50 63 .442
    Milwaukee 49 65 .430
    Miami 43 69 .384

  4. It’s actually ridiculously stupid for alex to put low salaried players on waivers. What’s the point? You mean he has no idea the trade value of these guys? Only high priced guys should be put on waivers to dare teams to claim them for nothing, like rios.

  5. It doesn’t mean that teams with winning records don’t think DeRosa is valuable. It just means that somebody with a worse record claimed him before any teams with winning records had a chance.

    • Of course, but why let the facts of the story get in the way of taking a jab at Character Guys?

      • Heyman specifically points out that there was only one team that put in a claim. You think they sit on a conference call for every guy who goes on waivers? There is a database through which claims are made, and it’s certainly very plausible– I’d go so far as to say likely– to think that there’s a period of time during which teams put in their claim, then when it expires they are told whose claim has been successful.

        But why let the facts get in the way of taking a jab at me?

        • Don’t worry I’m sure most of us will never let facts get in the way of taking a shot at you, at least I know I won’t.

        • Because you make jabs so fulfilling.

          Usually when I take a shot at someone on the internet they ignore me, depriving me of the pleasure I take knowing that they read it.

          But you never fail me! I say we bring back your “Old Reliable” moniker.

        • You’re definitely right about the process of the waiver system, I think, but I don’t recall ever seeing it reported, August waivers or otherwise, (other than this instance) as to how many teams made claims on a particular player. Doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. I wouldn’t think that the 30 teams are privy to that information, and only the commissioner’s office would know that info.

  6. What is the point of putting Encarnacion/Bautista on waivers? Just to give some team the opportunity to blow you away with an insane offer?

    • It also separates people who know how the baseball waiver system works and those who don’t. So when Bautista is put on waivers and its made public some guy, probably a Leafs fan, will go off about it and then you know from then on to not talk to him about baseball.

    • Allegedly teams also put everyone on waivers in an attempt to sneak someone they actually might want to trade through waivers.

  7. yeah but why?

    and also: enough with the old man experiments! Vizquel, Blanco, Derosa…

  8. To Dave’s point, if a team sub .500 claimed him, the ‘winning’ teams wouldn’t have gotten a shot at claiming him.

    yes the DeRosa in the club house crap is overrated, but as a guy who can play multiple infield positions and is hitting lefties well, he does have some value to a playoff team coming off the bench.

    • Heyman says specifically that only one team put in a claim.

      • Yah I read that,

        but I thought, and now perhaps I may be wrong, that once a team claims him, the teams above them in standings don’t have a chance to do so.

        • I don’t think each time a player is put on waivers MLB goes to each team in order of priority to ask them. Players are just on waivers and you can claim them until the waiver period is over.

          Perhaps the reason a good team didn’t claim him is because he’s likely not much of an upgrade over many in-house options. There are a-lot of right handed hitters who have good pop against lefties and can kind of play defense in a couple places.

        • Everybody has a chance to make a claim during the same period, the team record only comes into play in case of multiple claims at which pint the team with the worst record will get the winning claim.

          Now that I’m thinking of it, there was a time when even the best National League team would have a higher claim priority over the worst AL team (vica-versa if waived player was from an NL team). Not at all sure if that’s still the case.

  9. Stoeten, love your work on the blog, but imo you make it painfully obvious that you never played the game with your stance on team chemistry. Happy employees make for better more productive employees, this is an indisputable fact. While I agree that at times the whole concept is given more weight than it should, team chemistry absolutely contributes to better results on the field. Anyone who doesn’t agree with that, or can’t grasp that concept, is most likely a person that never participated in a competitive level of team sports. The more you like the guys you’re going to war with, the harder you’re going to fight for them. You can’t remove the human element from the game of baseball, as hard as you try… I find it extremely ignorant to dismiss the notion with such disdain…

    • How did Kobe and Shaq win all those NBA championships when they despised each other so much and Kobe is one of the biggest dick bags in the world? Claiming he never played the game as an excuse for not agreeing with what he says is extremely lazy. A-rod and Jeter won in 2009, how is there team chemistry?

      • Talent is more important than chemistry, obviously. That doesn’t mean chemistry doesn’t play a part, however minor.
        You have a chance to sign 2 guys of equal talent. One of them is a great dude that everybody loves to be around and work with and the other is a total ass hat. You tell me it’s still a coin flip?

        • That doesn’t mean chemistry means anything, it means that people don’t like to be around dicks. If the ass hat was slightly better, is it still a coin flip? Of course not. This is professional sports, and the name of the game is wins, and the path to wins is paved in talent. Bullshit about chemistry sells papers, though.

          • Even though none of us ever played major league anything, I think we have all gone to work at one point or another, and during these work periods we have had coworkers we really like, and coworkers we don’t. I my experience I’m much happier to go to my job when I like the people I work with, and I really do a better job than too, cause I don’t want to disappoint these people I like. Now I do still do my job when I work with people I don’t like, but I have to say it’s harder to push yourself. Anyone else agree? No? Ok well I guess I’m just a selfish, lazy piece of shit then.

            • Hey Weiner, ever been paid millions of dollars to do something?

              • You think that makes a difference? The average MLB player views 2.5 million dollars the same way most of us view 100 grand. It’s alot of money, but we know once we’regetting that per year on a regular basis, you stop putting in your best effort in every single day.

            • It could be argued that in a workplace where you don’t like your co-workers you’ll just go about your job and not socialize so while your productivity while working may be lower, your net productivity is actually higher.

              I think it’s bunk, especially since most right thinking people would get themselves out of a situation like that ASAP, but some machiavellian types eat shit like that up.

            • fuckin rights on!!! i had a job once, and you should do like i did…..i came in early and wiped my ass with the phone mouthpiece of everyone i didnt like!!! smell my shit, you fuckin turd barons!!! then i got fired but fuckin laugh to this day….I WIN cause you’s smelled it and thought you needed a mint! GO FUCKIN JAYS GO!!!

          • You’re missing the point.

            He’s not trying to say that chemistry makes people more talented; he’s saying that chemistry creates a situation more conducive to playing to one’s talent level, There’s obviously no way to scientifically prove or disprove this notion, but it has a certain intuitiveness does it not?

            Remember, if 2013 has taught us anything, talent itself doesn’t win shit! It’s players playing well that wins games, divisions, and championships. Of course, talented players are more likely to play well, but they are always apt to shit the bed (see Romero, Morrow, Johnson, Dickey, you get the point…). It’s at least possible that chemistry (a good clubhouse atmosphere, teammates who aren’t selfish, etc) had some effect on how well the individual players play, and whether or not they reach their true talent level.

            I’m not blaming 2013 on team chemistry or anything, but I do think it’s imprudent to dismiss it so entirely, when you’ve admitted many times that talented players themselves actually need to play the games.

          • Stoeten, chemistry does matter. Your correct that talent ultimately wins but if you get a group of players that geniunely like each other, they’ll go to the wall for each other and that produces wins on the field. Players try harder if they get along.

            • These old tropes don’t mean anything. They’re certainly not true.

            • so if we get a team full of queerios who really LOVE each other….we should win the world series, cause they would bend over backwards for each other on the field and in the shower is what your sayin. interesting concept, have you been to a psychiatrist lately?

        • If one fits considerably better into my budget, then no. All things equal, though, clearly you take the “good” guy.

      • Ooh, look everybody! Anecdotal evidence!

    • You know what makes for good chemistry?

      Wins.

      • ding ding ding. we have a winner

        No team has ever been successful and been criticized for having poor team chemistry.

        and no team has ever failed but been applauded for a good club house.

        • The Oakland A’s in the 70′s constantly fought with each other and still won World Series championships.

        • Robbie, what professional team did you play for?

          • i played for the Pikangikum Large Cocks!! i lettered in whiskey sippin, titty slappin, and pissing on stuff!! im a legend in these fuckin hills too, you wanna know how greats i was…..just ask me!

        • That’s because the narrative ascribes every winning team good chemistry

      • cold beer, and more cold beer!!

    • I guarantee I’ve played more baseball and more competitive baseball then you ever have..and I say that only because you feel that somehow not playing the game makes you incapable of understanding the ins and outs.

      That being said, while baseball is a team sport, its high individual. You take your own at bats, you throw your own pitches and you field the ground balls hit to you.

      While there is absolutely a human element to the game, players aren’t robots, and mental approach is just as important as physical capabilities. It’s ridiculous to think that having a ‘good guy’ in the club house would somehow band 25 guys together in perfect unity.

      Could Mark DeRosa shadow Brett Lawrie, help him calm down and mature faster? Sure I guess that’s possible. Could Mark DeRosa be such a good guy in the club house that the entire team actually starts playing better, stops making mistakes and starts pitching better? NO.

      Team chemistry exists more in sports that rely on a team system, like in football, soccer and hockey, but even then, if there is an asshole beside you do you really care?

    • Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s true. How is it indisputable that this vague notion of team chemistry contributes to better results? I don’t disagree that happier employees are more productive– I was a department manager back in another life, and I lived by that rule entirely– but I’m only ever talking about teams at the big league level when I dismiss chemistry, and while I’m sure wanting to be there helps your Sunday afternoon softball team get up more for games, but there are more than enough incentives and pressures at the big league level to make it a non-factor. There are plenty of cases of big leaguers with bad reputations who aren’t fun to be around playing on teams who’ve had a great deal of success. Cite the case of the opposite– a team playing above their heads because they all just like each other so much and want to fight for each other. Maybe in other sports you can find examples, but by it’s very nature baseball is essentially an individual sport, so there isn’t really the same kind of room for those kind of quaint ideas of banding together for a common cause. And if there are players who are so drastically, negatively effected by problems in the room, they’re almost certainly long weeded out before they get to the big leagues. By virtue of being at this level, being able to hit or to deliver Major League quality pitching in a frenzied stadium and in front of hundreds of thousands on TV, they’re able to tune things out and perform. If you think about it, and step back from the silly narrative that we’re told our whole lives, it just doesn’t make sense that professionals at this level are going to have their performance swayed in any kind of meaningful way by this stuff– and there are countless examples, like DeRosa’s presence on this year’s Jays doing nothing to stem the losing– that make it pretty obvious.

      Hey, but keep playing the “never played the game” card and see how that goes for you.

      • My softball team started 1-4 and then a real funny asian guy joined the team and now we’re 8-6. Not sure what this means, but I feel like it means something

        • is the real funny asian guy any good at softball?

        • It probably means somebody will jump on you and call you racist for feeling it necessary to point out the fun guy was Asian… Just how the interwebs go.

          • He’s making a Kawasaki reference which is a valid point towards team chemistry questions. Were the jays a better team with Kawasaki or just more fun to watch?

          • should I have pointed out that the asshole that left was American?

          • Well, why does it matter that the guy is Asian?
            Does it add anything to the story?
            No, it doesn’t. So it’s a needless qualifier based on race and therefor ‘racist’.
            That doesn’t make the initial poster racist, I’ll give him the bod.
            On the other hand, your preemptive attempt to dismiss the inherent racism in the op does suggest that you are, a racist. At the very least,it suggests that you are white and therefor; probably a racist.

        • sounds like the old steroids in the buk choy trick to me!! i fuckin invented that…except it was spanish fly in my ex wifes banock!!

      • Stoeten, your stance on chemistry doesn’t surprise me. Your a stats guy, evidence guy and that’s admorable. This is psychology and it’s obviously not your forte. Like I said in previous posts, if you play the game, work inside the game, you know baseball is a living, breathing entity that cannot be completely explained or appreciated by looking at WAR and metrics in general.

        • *bangs head on desk*

        • Completely? Of course not. But that truth doesn’t mean that the notions people have about chemistry hold any kind of water. There is nothing to suggest that they do, and as I’ve explained, it really wouldn’t make sense if they did. Teams do not magically get better results through having likable players and camaraderie. It’s about talent and anything else is entirely peripheral to that. Sorry if this isn’t what you want to hear, or isn’t what’s been drilled into you for years, but that statement shouldn’t be controversial as it is so obvious.

          • Stoeten, it’s okay man. Really. Chemistry exists and it’s important. If you played a team sport at any level, any level, you know it’s true. There’s many pressures at the MLB level for players to deal with…talent is critical to be successful as you state but so are the intangibles like chemistry. De Rosa has been given credit, subtle as it might be, by Lawrie for his improved hitting lately. Lawrie has the talent but without the help, from a non coach, he may continue to struggle. De Rosa over Milton Bradley kind of scenario…I go to war, pardon the pun, with De Rosa. He’s got your back and despite your denials, it means something to the player and they thrive in that type of atmosphere.

            • Who has given him subtle credit? Because that person is an idiot.

              All of this stuff you are saying is completely made up. You think you feel it, but you can’t prove it exists.

              It becomes especially transparent that you have no answers here because you try to rely on the silly crutch that is questioning my worthiness to discuss the topic. Good luck with that.

              • Andrew and Drew: I believe in chemistry, you don’t. What’s the problem? I accept your belief, which by the way, cannot be backed up by fact, that’s why we call it a belief, right? I believe in God, perhaps you do or don’t. But, I haven’t had lunch with God in years. You run a baseball blog, right? You’ve never actually played baseball, right? Have you actually worked in baseball in any capacity other than your current capacity? And we, all these posters on your blog are supposed to “believe” what you have to say about baseball as the gospel and beyond that, belief your philosophy around something that nobody on earth can prove…a belief? I believe that’s quite the leap of faith on your part and when you cannot back up your belief, which again, your belief cannot be proven either, because, well, um, it’s just a belief, than you tag team the poster for believing n chemistry and tell him to fuck off in multi ways all the while hiding behind a computer screen and the stunned claim, which you cannot prove either, that chemistry doesn’t exist? That’s so intelligent and makes me want to follow you to the end of the baseball season at least. Can I have your autograph? Wow!!

            • So any minute positive you’re ready to attribute to Derosa’s chemistry, but the COMPETE FUCKING CATASTROPHE THAT IS 2013, bullshit lack of fundamentals and everything, escapes the “leadership” purview?

              The players only meetings and the other clubhouse meeting that did fucking nothing doesn’t dent your belief in this players shaman-like ability to raise the dead?

              Wow, it’s almost like the mythical qualities you’re trying to attach to having a good dude around are ultimately nothing or window dressing at best. So weird.

              • Drew, you and Stoeten are just continuing to prove that talent alone doesn’t win you a World Series. Shoot flak at “team chemistry” all you two want, but the matter of it is this, you guys base all your opinions on numbers, and numbers don’t lie, so you consider yourselves to be true no matter what because you have numbers to back you up.

                Show me, and the rest of us, how chemistry doesn’t affect performance, with any other notion other than a reason that consists of: it’s bullshit, or it’s doesn’t exist.

                The two of you are starting to sound like Matthew Lillard in “Trouble With the Curve”.

            • If Derosa gets credit for Lawrie’s recent improvement, why did he wait so long? I say fuck that guy, he’s a terrible leader who’s hurting the team by withholding valuable information until the season’s already 100 games deep.

        • can you pass that on to AA please and thank you

          • Cornelius: You like facts, so know that Lawrie hasn’t played 100 games this year nor been with the team for much of the season due to injuries.

    • Do you really think that EE would try “that much harder” to pick up Bautista after a high-leverage strikeout because they stayed up late playing Nintendo on a sleepover together? Christ.

      Have you considered the fact that chemistry could – in theory – have a negative impact on performance due to an overly-relaxed atmosphere?

      Jose Canseco once complained about having to go to the playoffs every year (per TLR). Think the 88-90 A’s found Jose to be a hinderence? Or did they take the 35+HR with a smile?

      Just don’t make stupid accusations about never having played before review the inanity in your own head.

    • LOL @ the sports as war metaphor! However, I will revoke my snide comment if you meant W(ins) A(bove) R(eplacement), in which case, kudos for cleverness.

  10. two former jays alex rios and casper wells both got claimed off waivers

  11. The Jays won’t keep DeRosa because of his presence in the clubhouse. They’ll keep him because they have a really cheap option to him for next year and he provides decent value as a flexible, lefty-hitting bat off the bench.

  12. Lets’s stay calm boys and girls. I made a point which is completely my own own opinion, and I’m entitled to that – no need to be angry. Keep in mind that I did state that I believe the notion is given more weight than it should, but at the same time, to completely refuse that team chemistry has anything to do with the success of a squad is ridiculous to me. As with anything, there are exceptions – I’m sure there are many teams in the past that downright hated each other that won a lot of games, but having good chemistry can help a team perform better, to me that is a fact.
    Also, dc, you guarantee you’ve played more ball than me, eh? You don’t know me, or my history with the game – don’t be so ignorant, you’re making a fool of yourself. It’s entertaining me, but get your head out of your ass pal.

    • Then we disagree on what constitutes a fact.

      • Alright, so we can’t say for certain that team chemistry improves performance. Fine. Yet, on this site the belief usually is that team chemistry has no impact on performance. This can’t be substantiated either, just an opinion. If you’re so determined to just go by facts then the position should just be, “team chemistry may or may improve a team’s performance”.

        • *may or may not

        • ^What this guy said

        • in the absence of proof of a positive correlation, the onus is on those who can produce facts that there is a positive not for those to show that there is a negative.

          I can say that everytime i wear grey underwear it rains, it’s up to me to prove that there is a positive correlation between my underwear and the weather. Not for you to prove that a correlation doesn’t exist.

          so there is no argument that says, its up to anyone who doesn’t believe chemistry doesn’t equate to wins to prove anything, it doesn’t exist until its proven positive, which no one, ever has been able to do.

    • It really hurts your “it’s just my opinion” premise when the previous post uses the phrase “this is an indisputable fact.”

      • Happy employees being more productive than unhappy ones IS an indisputable fact

        • But you can’t just apply the same standards to a random office building or factory to a Major League Baseball team. Employees who are appropriately compensated for their work tend to put in more effort and be more productive. If the Jays were paying Bautista $25M, he wouldn’t go out and hit 50 more homeruns.

          There’s just no “next gear” in baseball where players can just will themselves to be better. I’m sure there are some players who don’t put in a full effort all the time, but not many players get to this level by half-assing it and then need some kind of incentive to be better. A batter who goes to the plate or a pitcher who takes the mound doesn’t really have the option to “try harder.”

        • baseball isn’t a normal work environment. the differences are so massive that a general claim about employees in the work place just doesn’t work

          • True, but they are still humans and so are prone to the same pressures, wants and needs as the rest of us.
            I agree that baseball is more individualistic than most team sports and so, is likely less dependent on inter-personal relations than hockey or football but I also think that the inter-personal realities will impact a team’s W-L record. More cohesive teams are probably more likely to operate with a team culture, moving runners along, hitting cutoff men, not trying to steal 3rd with 2 outs on a 2-0 count etc
            Impossible to measure really but that doesn’t mean that the one camp should be so vociferous in its opposition to the concept of team culture and its relation to performance.

            • It would be very tough to measure something you just completely made up, yes.

              • What did I make up exactly? Maybe you need to put down the sauce and read a book or two, methinks the panst blue ribbons have gotten to you

                • You made up this: “More cohesive teams are probably more likely to operate with a team culture, moving runners along, hitting cutoff men, not trying to steal 3rd with 2 outs on a 2-0 count etc”

                  It’s garbage, sorry.

              • Says you, so it must be right?

      • Sure you can compare the two, of course there are major differences but baseball players are still human. That whole Travis Snider piece on Sportsnet last year should go a long way to providing some insight that players aren’t robots. If there is any team sport where chemistry is a minor factor, it’s probaby baseball, but none of us can really say how much or little it matters.

    • you mean kind of like how you don’t know stoeten, or his history with the game or how you’re ignorant and making a fool of yourself?

      nice back track reply. next time maybe don’t try to pass your opinion as enlightened fact just because you’ve played baseball and maybe people won’t be so quick to rip your argument apart limb from limb.

      • Also on that note, if you want to do that, don’t do it on a blog that is well known for using advanced metrics and dismissed intangibles (not completely, but the myths around them).

      • There’s no backtrack, I still believe it to be preposterous to disregard team chemistry as having no effect on a team’s success

        • and 20 years ago people thought RBI’s were a true indicator of offensive production.

          but we evolve.

          • You are right about one thing, dc, I took Stoeten’s point of view as being indicative of someone who never played baseball, which is a mere generalization… Although he did make the assumption that I’m a Sunday softball player, so I guess we’re even… None the less, I apologize for jumping to that conclusion, Andrew, but I’m just curious, was I right? Did you play the game competitively? I am just curious…

          • suck my cornhole, LONG LIVE GWRBI’S!!!!!

    • Everyone loves a positive working environment, but is good clubhouse chemistry more important to a team than:

      Turf/Grass
      Home crowd
      Media criticism

      I would wager those three things are more important to teams than good clubhouse chemistry, while still being in the category of fringe benefits to a ball club that would increase production by an incredibly small, albeit existent, percentage.

  13. Rips clames

  14. LOL RIOS

  15. Resurgence as a lefty-masher you say… pity Gibbons forgot that sometime this year and decided to trot Adam Lind out there everyday.

  16. Fuck people are stupid! Revocable waivers… Revocable got it… Revocable means you can revoke any deal and pull the player back. Which part don’t people get?

    Clue in retards.

  17. Wouldn’t it be funny if the jays claimed rios in AA’s misguided attempt to game the system and flip him for more?

  18. I don’t think anyone would dismiss a happier working environment as being a good thing, it’s more that something like chemistry is impossible to measure accurately, and is far, far less important than being good at baseball.

    Some people assume that a winning clubhouse has good chemistry, which is classic correlation/causation problem. So because one team ended up winning one more game out of seven, they must have had better chemistry than the other team? Probably not.

  19. This whole liking players because theyre good guys thinking really annoys me. Like, the only people that still like jpa is because he is nice guy that supports local charities and likes hockey. All I care about is whether the player performs on the field. Thats all that matters at the pro level. Everything else is bs. I could care less that derosa is a “nice guy”. He performs adequately as a platoon partner. That should be his calling card on the majors. Not this “good guy” bs.

  20. From what I just read about revocable waivers, a player is awarded to the worst team (statistically) that makes a claim on him. No other team(s) are ever mentioned. So this whole “only a shitty sub-500 team claimed” Mark Derosa seems invalid.

    I’m sure several teams put in claims on several players, I’m quite sure when you or anyone else say’s there was only “X” numbers of claims on a guy, you are talking out of your ass.

  21. Clubhouse jive aside, It’s better to keep him around because who knows what the off season will bring so far as solutions to 2nd base & DH. A RHP masher could be the best piece available in which case DeRosa may be the short half of the platoon.

    They can always decline the option if a better solution or use of roster spots come along. The only thing lost is a (relatively) small amount of money and an org guy likely in return.

    That said, does anyone know by what date the Jays have to agree to pick up options? Is there any overlap with the FA market?

  22. If we are perhaps rightfully shitting on intangibles, why do teams perform better at home than on the road?

    • Excellent question.

      But I’m sure it’s just either a) luck or b) coincidence

      • familiarity with the playing field.
        getting to bat last.
        etc.

        • I don’t think those two factors are enough to explain the marked difference between teams’ home and away records each year. I realize you included an “etc.” but I suspect there is a lot more to it than batting last and playing field familiarity.

          Not to hone in on playing field familiarity, but most parks are grass so there is really only the issue of the outfield dimensions, unique features of the wall, etc. that serve as differentiating factors.

          • Here’s a tip: If it can not be quantified then people like Mr. Stoeten will simply dismiss it outright.

            He and others like him are merely zealots on one side of the equation.

            The other side contains people that think heart and hustle will triumph over all.

            Both are wrong!

          • And in the rare case of road teams playing at the Dome and Tropicana Field for the first time: turf.

      • I think being well rested, sleeping in your own bed, might have something to with it, but probably more so is familarity with the playing field.

    • There was a book published called Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won, by Tobias Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim. It’s been awhile since I’ve read it, but you can account for most of it through umpiring being inherently biased to the home team/crowd.

    • blow jobs in familiar surroundings increases performance by 43.674%

  23. DaRosa’s never had his name mentioned on the Interweb as often as today.
    Too bad it’s in the same paragraph as “chemistry”, “bench guy” and “who the fuck cares?”.

  24. wow, just…wow. hilarious, thanks for the entertainment!

    chemistry and psychology? REALLY?!?!?!
    “you never played man you don’t know bro…”

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. my sympathies to drew and stoeten.

    • Playing gives unique insight. Probably not as much as some would believe but it can’t be discounted to the extent it is by, suprise suprise, people that didn’t play.

      Some would simply throw human psychology completely out of the equation.

      Some would say “Well a professional athlete has faced pressure his whole life so those that can’t deal with it have been weeded out by the time they’ve reached their pinnacle.”

      I think there is definitely some merrit in that but it can’t be cometely true.

      I’ll likely be ridiculed for this but look at Golfers. On any given Sunday afternoon you could see a player completely collapse due to pressure as he closes in on a win. Mostly due to the immense pressure faced in the moment.

      They aren’t cyborgs!!

      • if you believe you have to play the game then you have to believe that those who did have a better understanding of the game.

        so do you like greg zaun? is he smart? because he played baseball he doesn’t know the game?

        you know who’s probably the greatest baseball mind of our time? Joe MF Maddon, and how many big league games did he play?

        • @dc

          So you’re saying that people who study the stats and watch the games have a better understanding of baseball than people who have played or coached it all their lives?

        • No, I think a mix of both perspectives is best, which is what I thought I said.

          Joe Maddon played both College and profesionally so I’m not quite sure what your point is.

  25. There are certainly plenty of details like that to take into consideration. That’s a great point out bring up. My partner and i offer the thoughts above while general inspiration but evidently there are queries like the one anyone bring up the place that the most important thing is going to be working in truthful good trust. I don?t determine if best practices are located around such things as that, on the other hand am sure that your particular job will be clearly recognized as a fair online game. Both children feel the influence of simply a moment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *