J'Accuse

[Lucky Jim]

Just to play devil's advocate, what Hammel is saying is essentially BS.

1) All four home runs came on fastballs

2) Hammel through 48 breaking pitches. The Blue Jays hit 2 base hits off of them.

Knowing a breaking ball is coming doesn't mean you can hit it. Knowing whether a breaking ball is coming does allow you to sit fastball. This has all been addressed. The devil needs a better advocate (he surely can afford one).

[T. Legend]

Knowing a breaking ball is coming doesn't mean you can hit it. Knowing whether a breaking ball is coming does allow you to sit fastball. This has all been addressed. The devil needs a better advocate (he surely can afford one).

If the Jays were taking such "strong hacks on breaking stuff", then where are the results???

[btownoriole]

Just to play devil's advocate, what Hammel is saying is essentially BS.

1) All four home runs came on fastballs

2) Hammel through 48 breaking pitches. The Blue Jays hit 2 base hits off of them.

If they knew a breaking ball was coming, by process of elimination, they know a fastball is coming.

That said, if the Blue Jays had to have a press conference to deny this last year, then why didn't the Orioles change their signs with no one on base like the Yankees did? If they are stealing signs, keep your mouth shut, and change your signs the next time you're in town. Then the O's would have an advantage.

[Lucky Jim]

If the Jays were taking such "strong hacks on breaking stuff", then where are the results???

What's the correlation between swinging hard on a breaking pitch and making contact?

[Can_of_corn]

If the Jays were taking such "strong hacks on breaking stuff", then where are the results???

Maybe some of those just foul balls that had the distance to be home runs? Maybe line drives hit right at people? Maybe despite the "strong hacks" they still didn't make good contact?

[Dipper9]

The starting pitchers were Jason Hammel, Jake Arrieta and Tommy Hunter. I know we like to buy into the early season hype usually, but it's not completely out of the realm of possibility that these guys were giving up home runs.

Bautista has a higher OPS on the road this year btw....

Except for the "small" fact that Hammel has given up three dingers ALL year and yet gave up FOUR in one game yesterday.

[weams]

Knowing a breaking ball is coming doesn't mean you can hit it. Knowing whether a breaking ball is coming does allow you to sit fastball. This has all been addressed. The devil needs a better advocate (he surely can afford one).

When I played Baseball with Brooks Robinson up at Doubleday Resort, my brother-in-law was catching for the opposing squad. After Brooks made me look foolish by throwing me a curveball in a fastball count, my sister's husband would tell me when it was coming so I could lay off of it. I went two for three.

[T. Legend]

What's the correlation between swinging hard on a breaking pitch and making contact?

He actually said "Strong hacks"....and I assume that there would be a pretty strong correlation between putting a good swing on a ball and getting good results. Just like there would be a strong correlation between a terrible swing and poor results.

[Can_of_corn]

If they knew a breaking ball was coming, by process of elimination, they know a fastball is coming.

That said, if the Blue Jays had to have a press conference to deny this last year, then why didn't the Orioles change their signs with no one on base like the Yankees did? If they are stealing signs, keep your mouth shut, and change your signs the next time you're in town. Then the O's would have an advantage.

Maybe, maybe not. If I am choosing someone to commit such a nefarious act I am choosing someone who would be good at deciphering signs. If the O's did something as simple as changing signs it wouldn't take long for the "eye in the sky" to decipher the new code. They could run through multiple sets of signs and change them up regularly but then you add to the mental workload of the pitcher and catcher and make it a lot more likely that they will get "crossed up" resulting in passed balls or wild pitches.

The proper fix is for MLB to correct the issue (if indeed there is an issue to correct).

[T. Legend]

When I played Baseball with Brooks Robinson up at Doubleday Resort, my brother-in-law was catching for the opposing squad. After Brooks made me look foolish by throwing me a curveball in a fastball count, my sister's husband would tell me when it was coming so I could lay off of it. I went two for three.

The Jays have always been a good fastball team. Maybe Hammel should have thrown more of those breaking balls? The Jays had 2 hits off of them, and no home runs.

[Can_of_corn]

The Jays have always been a good fastball team. Maybe Hammel should have thrown more of those breaking balls? The Jays had 2 hits off of them, and no home runs.

I find it odd that 10 of your 12 posts involve the Blue Jays.

[T. Legend]

Except for the "small" fact that Hammel has given up three dingers ALL year and yet gave up FOUR in one game yesterday.

Last year, Hammel gave up 8 home runs in 82 IP on the road(rate of 1 every ten innings), in a far easier league and divison (if I include Coors the numbers become far worse).

Going into last night, Hammel had given up 3 home runs in 55 innings (rate of 1 every 18 innings) in a far tougher league and division. I'd say he was due to give up a few more home runs.

The truth hurts, but it's called regressing to the mean. It doesn't always have to be the world against us.

[T. Legend]

I find it odd that 10 of your 12 posts involve the Blue Jays.

And I find it odd that someone feels the need to go digging through an obvious lurker's message history....we all get frustrated by the O's from time to time, there doesn't have to be some nefarious explanation for it.

[Lucky Jim]

He actually said "Strong hacks"....and I assume that there would be a pretty strong correlation between putting a good swing on a ball and getting good results. Just like there would be a strong correlation between a terrible swing and poor results.

I think he meant they weren't "fooled." But, going by pitch values, Hammel's slider is virtually unhittable this year. I'm not sure knowing it's coming helps that much. Hammel's FB is good, but more hittable. Sitting FB can make a huge difference.

[Lucky Jim]

Last year, Hammel gave up 8 home runs in 82 IP on the road(rate of 1 every ten innings), in a far easier league and divison (if I include Coors the numbers become far worse).

Going into last night, Hammel had given up 3 home runs in 55 innings (rate of 1 every 18 innings) in a far tougher league and division. I'd say he was due to give up a few more home runs.

The truth hurts, but it's called regressing to the mean. It doesn't always have to be the world against us.

I'm not sure how relevant last year is, frankly. Why is last year "the mean"?