This Isn't an Issue

He makes them because he recognizes two things. One that short term failure does not necessarily preclude long term usefullness. And two that there are factors in evaluating players that may not be obvious to every fan. That is, watching them close up with a practiced eye, he may see skills we fail to see.

As R.J. says, he does not make personnel decisions. The issue is whether he misuses Hammel or anyone else on the roster, and anyone would be hard put to demonstrate that he is not using Hammel exactly for the purpose Jason is intended.

Since July 4, Hammel has been in 18 games before last night. Only 4 times was he brought in with less than a 5 run differential. Once it was 4-2 against Cliff Lee and in 3 innings he gave up 1 run which may have made it tougher on the Rays but probably meant nothing. Once he got a hold in a 6-4 win when he went 2/3 inning with 1 BB. And the other two were in extra innings when he got a 3 inning win and a loss. In the other 14 his job was mop-up and he did it just fine, saving the bullpen by finishing the game 11 times. In those 18 appearances, his ERA dropped from 4.88 to 4.12.

Nonetheless, Hammel has not been a good pitcher. His numbers demonstrate that as does observation. He misses his spots too much and walks too many, strikes out too few and is prone to the long ball. He is the 12th pitcher on a 12 man staff doing what most 12th men do. I am not so sure that someone else is an upgrade, because you do not want Price or Talbot or anyone else rotting in the bullpen. You want them to get regular work, and whoever replaces Hammel would not.

It is not always a good idea to have the “better” player replace someone else, not if the role does not suit that player. Sometimes the best man for the job is not necessarily the best player.

One more thing; on this and other sites fans have demanded, ardently demanded, that the Rays jettison each of the following players: Floyd, Aybar, Gross. I don’t mean demanded as they have about Upton or in a trade as has been suggested in the case of Hinske or with some mild irritation as with Riggans. I mean with absolute certainty that each is a waste of space or that someone else in the system (Dan Johnson, Ruggiano, F. Perez) is clearly better. Over the past few years we have seem the same demands regarding Camp, Stokes, Waechter et al, each of whom has now tasted occasional success elsewhere. Maddon was not being loyal to them; he was trying to make use of the talent they had as best he could. It was correct to move them, but while here it was also correct to find some role for them and to focus on nurturing their talent, not obsessing over their weaknesses.