2006 Toronto Blue Jays

A quick look back:

Take a 71 win team. Add an injury to the ace starter. Add an injury and an off year to the number two starter. Have the young starter you're relying on pitch poorly enough to be sent down. Convert another dependable (if unspectacular) starter to your closer (removing 130 or so useful innings from the mix – in the hope of getting better performance in the limited inning) and have him ... well fail is far too strong, but he sure didn't deliver what was hoped for.

Then add an injury filled season by your key offensive off-season pick and have a young player pretty much forced into the lineup (by the available talent in the organization) take a big step backward.

That's not all that went wrong for the Blue Jays in 2005, they also had normal luck with injuries.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster right? Try a nine game improvement.

And that understates how well the Blue Jays played. After all they out-scored their opposition by 70 runs. You'd have expected about 87 wins given their runs scored and allowed last year.

So what went right? Here's a quick look by position – compared to 2004. And just for the heck of it, I'll make a quick guess at 2006. (Be aware that these are on the optimistic side – it assumes all front-line players are healthy and that's pretty rare. For example the 2005 CF numbers include more Reed Johnson than the 2006 number do. The Jays would never play Johnson in center if they can get away with it. In addition, the Jays 2005 DH number include some playing time from Vernon Wells. Handle with care in other words)

POPS+ is the same as OPS+ except that rather than comparing to the league average, the position average is used. 100 is average. Replacement level is something around 80.

Position	2004	2005	2006
Catcher	88	91	109
First base	108	89	112
Second base	109	91	90
Third base	67	109	126
Shortstop	80	83	87
Left field	79	100	97
Center field	101	112	122
Right Field	80	80	86
DH	73	100	93

Put simply, while they regressed at the two strongest positions (relative to their peers), the improvement at three open wounds more than covered this. And despite what happened with Lilly and Halliday (and to a lesser extent Bush) an awful lot went right with the pitching staff.

Looking forward:

It's not hard to imagine a scenario where the Blue Jays win the division. Pretty much everybody has some chance to be better than average, and there are a few guys for whom average would be a disappointment. That said, while I expect them to be on the fringes of the pennant race it's going to take a fair amount of luck for them to actually get in.

The basic problem is that injuries and off-years are a fact of life and in a lot of cases the drop-off from plan A to plan B will be severe.

Many years ago Bill James came up with a set of general indicators of a team's likely direction. Here's how the Jays fare.

Won/loss record: Teams with good records tend to decline. Teams with bad records tend to improve. Given that the Jays won 80 games, not an issue.

Record after August first: The Jays went 27-31. Not exactly worrisome, but not an indication of improvement.

Team age: This is a slight positive. Young teams tend to improve and only four teams in the AL were younger.

Actual record compared to pythagorean projection (IE expected win given runs scored and allowed) This is the biggest positive. Teams that win 8 games fewer than you'd expect tend to improve.

Actual runs scored compared to expected runs scored: Teams which score more runs than you'd expect given their basic offensive stats tend to decline. In this case pretty much every metric I've looked at has the Jays scoring more than you'd expect. Nothing major, but an indication that they might not have been quite as good as their pythagorean projection. The success of the Jays' pinch-hitters certainly played a role here. They hit .306/.403/.446 and are a poor bet to deliver that in 2006.

Change relative to the previous year. Teams that improve are a pretty fair bet to regress the next season. A negative indicator for the Jays.

Record of the AAA team: It's a simple though obviously imperfect indication of the talent in the pipeline. In 2005 Syracuse played .493 ball. Not a positive.

I place more weight on a position by position analysis than these indicators, but as is fairly common the indicators and the positional analysis largely line up.

Offensive Overview:

I'd expect the Blue Jays to roughly hold their 2005 level. This may seem a tad pessimistic given the probable upgrades at first and (in particular) third, The real problem is that as things stand John McDonald rates to play a fair amount and that's just not good for putting runs across the plate.

Additions: Bengie Molina C, Lyle Overbay 1B, Troy Glaus 3B

Departures: Orlando Hudson 2B, Corey Koskie 3B, Frank Menechino, INF

Catcher: Bengie Molina

The story's been pretty much the same for a couple of years now. Gregg Zaun (and before him Greg Myers) has been useful if unspectacular (I have Zaun as being just a hair below the average AL starting catcher. You'll get slightly different results as depending on how you weight playing time and how you treat the Seattle flying circus) and the backups have been terrible.

Molina's not what you'd call a lock to be better than Zaun was in 2005, but regardless of how the playing time is divided (I expect Molina to start with the bulk of the playing time and Zaun to work into the mix more and more as the season goes along), it's likely that the Jays will get quite a bit more from the catcher's spot. Yeah the backups have been that bad. I have them at .179/.213/.222 last year, and unless you have Gary Carter in his prime, the backup catcher is always going to play a fair amount.

I wasn't what you'd call a fan of signing Molina, but you know it makes a lot more sense to me now. There's no particular reason to think that Zaun will look at his birth certificate and suddenly turn into a pumpkin, but catchers at his age aren't what you'd call a good long (or even medium) term bet. Not of course that Molina is a great long-term bet, but he is a reasonable bet to hold up over the term of the contract.

Evidently Guillermo Quiroz isn't in the plans (I figure Zaun has no significant trade value and you simply don't sign Molina if you think Quiroz will be healthy and able to play at something approaching the level he showed a few years back). All I can say is, insufficient morbid curiosity. Quiroz is starting to remind me of “Lucky” Tom Evans. For those who don't remember him, Evans was voted player most likely to be hit by a meteor – in the event that he actually worked himself into a starting role.

One of my favorite posters (Spooky from the BlueJays usenet group) was moved to write the following on the subject of Evans a few years back (I was of course reminded of this by Derek's masterpiece on Bugs Bunny)

Did anyone hear Jerry Howarth talking to Tom Evans last week? It was like an episode of *ER* compressed into five minutes.

Evans was asked about how his hand was feeling (injured just as a spot in the bigs opened up for him, finally.) Hands feelin' alright. Too bad that, just as it healed, Evens took a hard hit in the face.

The eye and left side of the face look nasty, but Evans says he's lucky. It would have been worse getting hit right in the teeth or had the ball caught the rim of his eye-socket rather than the squooshy part of the eye, dead on. Passed the catscan with flying colours.

And how's the old shoulder injury, and surgery, doing? Well, the arm feels a lot better. What about the *other* surgery? Both shoulder surgeries feel fine right now.

As Evans left the booth, an Acme grand piano fell on him and squashed him like a bug. Before paramedics could arrive on the scene, an iron safe, quickly followed by an overhanging rock formation, descended in rapid succession.

I like the fact that Zaun and Molina have broadly similar offensive values but very different skills. In theory you can get a little extra out of two limited players that way. In practice -- I'm trying to say this without sounding critical of John Gibbons – I'm not clear that this is an important consideration to Gibbons. I'd expect Gibbons to play Molina as often as possible against lefties and to rotate Zaun and Molina against right-handers largely based on the Jays' starting pitcher.

First base: Lyle Overbay

Eric Hinske played as well as anybody could have expected in 2005 and the position was a weak spot (granted, he wasn't the only guy to play first, and in fact Hinske's numbers are a bit better than the other guys who played there). Overbay didn't play as well as most people hoped/expected in 2005 (though he was pretty close to career norms all things considered) and was still a fair bit better than Hinske. Assuming he stays healthy, first base should be in much better hands.

The Jays are awash in reasonable short-term options when Overbay isn't in the lineup, but it's always going to be tempting for Gibbons to play Overbay. He won't want to sit him against a right-hander, and Catalanotto and Hinske are always going to be better candidates to sit against a lefty. In effect you're going to be replacing Overbay with either a backup infielder (and then why not sit Adams?) or a catcher (sensible, but most managers don't like to have both of their catchers in the game, and I doubt the Jays will carry three catchers)

Kevin Barker is a pretty fair player for a guy with almost no shot to play. No prospect given his age, but he's at least as good an offensive player as Hinske. If they can get something of value for Hinske (doubtful), then Barker might move into the mix. Finding playing time for Barker and Hillenbrand might be problematic, but it's not a bad problem to have.

Second base: Aaron Hill

In general you have to give something of value to get a player as good as Troy Glaus. Orlando Hudson will be missed (in no small part because Hill and Frank Menechino won't be available to fill in. The offensive drop-off between Hill and John McDonald is considerable) but it's a price the Jays were willing to pay because they think Hill is ready for prime time.

There's an awful lot to like about Hill's record to date. His minor league record doesn't scream future star, but it does suggest that nothing about his play last year was a fluke. He's already good enough that he doesn't need to improve to be playing on merit and he's young enough that you can hope for more than what he's shown so far. A lot of Blue Jay fans were somehow expecting that his superb play when first called up last year was an actual ability level. I'd bet heavily against it.

All in all I wouldn't expect more from Hill and his backup than what the Jays got from the position last year. There's some chance of a big improvement and little chance of a big decline.

Assuming Hill stays healthy – all bets are off if he gets hurt. Ryan Roberts is promising but probably neither ready nor in the short-term plans if Hill goes down. Which probably leaves Luis Figueroa. I think we can forget about Catalanotto except possibly in an in-game emergency.

Third base: Troy Glaus

You have to like a player with Mike Schmidt at the top of his list of comps. (Not that he's as good as Schmidt. Offensive context and all that). There's some risk here of course. Corey Koskie played roughly as well as Glaus (and a lot more) in 2003-2004. Didn't work out. (And no, I'm not trying to second-guess the Koskie signing. A lot of perfectly reasonable moves don't work out)

I assume any questions about Glaus' shoulder were resolved before the trade was made. Still leaves a small question mark in my mind, but I've always figured the guys to take calculated risks on are the guys who rate to be a big plus if things go according to plan.

Hillenbrand is the backup, and that's a nice fall-back position. Not a good thing if he actually has to play a lot, but most teams would settle for a backup plan this good.

A healthy Glaus will be a major upgrade over last year's situation.

Shortstop: Russ Adams

I've been quite high on Adams for a while now and his 2005 was perfectly in line with his minor league career. So I was really surprised by the way the numbers came out. I mean I knew there were issues with his glove, but I'd simply assumed he was a plus with the bat. He's not.(though he's a lot better compared to AL starting shortstops than his backups have been compared to AL backups) and there's no particular reason to expect this to change. Players who played regularly at both 24 and 25 don't play a lot better (as a group that is. Any serious fan can name plenty of exceptions.) You can hope for more, but I wouldn't plan on it.

It says something about where Adams is currently that John McDonald may well be a better option (considering that McDonald is a better defensive player) against a left-handed starter. I wouldn't advocate a platoon since I don't think the difference between the two is that large and Adams has a real upside.

Incidentally, I know it sounds like I'm really down on McDonald. I don't think a situation where he rates to get any kind of playing time reflects good planning. However it makes all the sense in the world to carry a good glove given the legitimate concerns about Adams.

When a team carries a kazillion pitchers (as all teams do these days) your backup infielders are going to be forced into action an uncomfortable amount of time. McDonald would have real value on a team constructed in the Earl Weaver manner, but that model has been discarded.

Left Field: Frank Catalanotto/Reed Johnson

It's tempting to re-use my comments from last year. Nothing's really changed, both played about as well as you'd expect last year and there's no real reason to expect much to be different this year. League average from two roster spots isn't great, but the arrangement allows the fourth outfielder to contribute, and it's coming at a pretty reasonable price.

One thing of note. While Catalanotto had a big platoon split, Johnson had next to none. I can't say enough about how silly it is to attach any significance to single year platoon splits. Catalanotto could easily end up out-hitting Johnson against lefties in 2006 and it wouldn't make the decision to platoon them wrong.

You know a lot of people have called Pete Rose a limited player who became great through his work ethic. But it's not true. He started from a base that most players can only dream of reaching and then built on it.

Johnson's got all you could ask for in work ethic and hustle and is strictly a fringe player -- a guy who can help you if used carefully. No amount of effort will give you Pete Rose if you start with Reed Johnson's skills. On the other hand, if Johnson didn't have the drive he's demonstrated it's doubtful he'd be in the majors.

Center field: Vernon Wells

Like overrated, disappointing is often seen as an insult when talking about a player. But disappointing does not mean poor and Wells is a useful example of this. A fine player, but not close to what was hoped/expected.

An awful lot of people expected greatness after he shot through the minors and it seemed that he'd delivered on that promise with his 2003. It looks like 2003 was something of a fluke and that what you can reasonably expect from Wells is an excellent glove and a bat that's comfortably above average at the position. (Zips might be a tad optimistic but it's sure not wildly out of line)

Reed Johnson is a quality backup. A good defensive player who hits like a backup center fielder. It'll be a major disaster if he's forced to play with any kind of frequency.

Right Field: Alexis Rios(?)

I don't know whether the Jays are simply trying to motivate Rios (and if that's the plan I think it's a good idea) with the current Hinske in right experiment or whether they're trying to make Hinske more attractive on the trade market (I doubt he's actually got any trade value) or whether they seriously think it's a good idea to try to make Hinske an outfielder. Whatever their thinking is, I'd bet Rios ends up playing (more or less) on merit. Even at his 2005 level of play Rios is as good an option as exists in the organization (Yeah Johnson might be better. I wouldn't be keen on finding out what Johnson can give me on an everyday basis. And I don't like the idea of pushing Rios into a platoon role)

Rios is a case where disappointing is very close to being a put-down. Most people agree that his defensive skills are excellent. There's some question about his defensive effort from time to time -- he was after all benched briefly for dogging it in the field. And the only thing that seems to be holding him back offensively is a lack of discipline.

I'm not talking about his walk rate (though it will have to come up if he's to be adequate) so much as his tendency to chase pitches that he simply can't hit hard. Major league pitchers are simply too good to give them this kind of edge.

I really doubt he'll ever become truly disciplined, but he doesn't need to in order to make a big step forward. Roberto Clemente for instance never became truly disciplined but he learned to lay off a particular pitch that he just couldn't drive. Sounds simple, but it's not. Clemente is very much the exception not the rule.

I'm not at all optimistic about the position in 2006. My vote for position most likely to be an open wound. On the other hand, it wouldn't shock me if Rios actually played well. It can happen when you're patient with guys who have lots of athletic ability. Lloyd Moseby comes to mind. I just don't think it's the way to bet.

In case it needs to be said, I don't like the odds of Hinske being adequate at the position. His bat might be acceptable (particularly in a platoon role, though the roster spot to platoon him might be problematic) but it's extremely probable that he'll be bad defensively and that's just not acceptable.

Nothing of real interest on the immediate horizon either, so I figure it's sink or swim with Rios.

Designated hitter: Shea Hillenbrand

The casual fan is likely to think he's a better player than a stathead sees him as. The strongest points of his game are probably his batting average and rbi totals (though neither is likely to be real good)

This wasn't news when Riccardi picked him up, but remember the price (in talent given to pick him up) was right and Hillenbrand's real value isn't changed by the way it's made up.

Any GM will pick up the occasional player whose talents may not be a match to his preferred type of player. Al Bumbry for instance wasn't a stereotypical Earl Weaver walks and home runs player (yes I know Weaver wasn't the GM. He had far more input into roster decisions than most managers have these days), but he addressed an organizational need and helped the Orioles win a fair number of games. Like Bumbry, Hillenbrand is nothing special but plays a useful role. OK, maybe Hillenbrand's package has led him to be somewhat over-paid and that's a potential issue for a team with real concerns about payroll. Wouldn't shock me to see him moved.

He can be moved without creating a major problem. Kevin Barker rates to hit about as well (though obviously Barker can't play third. But let's face it, Hinske's not a bad option in the very short term and if you need somebody besides Glaus for any length of time, the wheels have come off in a big way)

Piching overview:

The Jays went from a staff era+ of 99 to a 110 and did so in spite of the problems I mentioned before to Halliday and Lilly. And it wasn't luck. Strikeouts were up, walks were down, they threw a fair number less pitches and got more ground-ball outs. Oddly home runs allowed were up slightly, but if Blue Jay pitchers were trading hits and walks for a few home runs they made an effective choice. It's a trade-off made by many successful pitchers over the years. And by (to name a few) John Wasdin and Eric Milton. I'm not suggesting the staff is going to go Milton, merely raising the issue as a potential concern. (It wouldn't surprise me at all if Josh Towers went Milton, but that's a gut reaction nothing more)

Now they're adding a good (if perhaps overrated -- among other things Burnett gave up a fair number of unearned runs last year. Still he can pitch for my team any time) starter in Burnett (while losing Bush) and an elite closer as an upgrade to what was arguably the weak spot of the staff.

And yet when you look at any set of projections you see the staff rates to be worse than last year. In the range of 4% better than league average after adjusting for context. If you're a Jays fan you can be more optimistic that this, and if the Jays are to be serious contenders it's the pitching that pretty much has to carry them. Not a great bet in my opinion, but it's not crazy to hope for an excellent staff.

Starters:

For several years the second tier of starters have been uniformly terrible.In 2005 the Jays got 10 terrible starts from Dustin McGowan and Chad Gaudin but pretty much evrybody else (besides Lilly who I mentioned in the intro) ptiched well. Well is an understatement actually – they weren't merely good relative to their established level of talent, they were good period. Not a good bet to continue.

Oh nobody was a mile over their head. It's just that with pitching general good health is something to hope for, not plan for. And every staff can expect to have a few guys who take a step back.

Another way to look at it, Zips calls for an era of almost spot on 4.00 combined from Halliday, Burnett, Lilly, Chacin and Towers. I think that's a little optimistic but clearly reasonable. It's not at all reasonable to expect those five to make every scheduled start. Zips has them at 144 start and if I were running the Blue Jays I'd settle for that. (I will note that I've seen a few references to Halliday being injury prone. Unless you think he's likely to be hit by another nasty line drive, I don't see why this would be a concern -- beyond the normal issue with any pitcher. Thanks to Rusty Priske for bringing this up)

Scott Downs is a better option than a lot of teams have for the spot starter. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see him out-pitch at least one member of the rotation. After that well I still think Scott Schoenweiss is wasted in the loogy role, but I doubt he'd be pressed into service. The options behind Downs are the normal. Maybe a young starter (Josh Banks perhaps) would be asked to fill in. Perhaps successfully, though that is asking a lot

All that to say I'd expect something in the range of a 4.40 era from all of the Jays starters. It was 4.20 last year.

Bullpen:

The Jays surprised me last year by actually following through with the plan to use Batista as a closer.

First and foremost I just didn't see enough pitching depth to use him in that role. I figured one useful starter out of Towers, Chacin and Downs (and good luck identifying which one), meaning a real need for Batista in the rotation.

But I also couldn't see the sense of it when looking at other issues. A lot of guys who are successful in the bullpen can't cut it as starters because they lack an effective repertoire (or at least that's conventional wisdom). Batista has been criticized in the past for failing to make use of all of his pitches -- for falling in love with a particular pitch. Not a big deal but odd.

Sometimes guys are converted to relief because of stamina concerns. Didn't seem to be an issue with Batista. On a somewhat related note, he's never had a history of dominating against the first few batters and then fading.

What's more, stathead conventional wisdom isn't precisely that anybody can close, but rather that most good relief pitchers have pitched about as well when asked to close as they have overall and that in designating a pitcher to accumulate saves you're volunteering to over-pay that pitcher.

Oh well, in an odd sort of way it worked out. Had Batista been starting it's likely that it would have been at the expense of Towers or Chacin and both pitched better than you could have expected Batista to. And it's not like a significant role was available in the bullpen.

I figured the logical guy to end up as closer was Justin Speier. I can understand why a manager might be uncomfortable with him in that role. He's been quite effective for most of his career, but has always given up more home runs than you'd like. In the long run it doesn't really matter how a pitcher gives up runs, but a closer (particularly one without a reputation to protect the manager from second-guessing) who gives up too many home runs will get a manager fired. I'm not clear that it was Gibbons' call to make in any case, but I can certainly understand why he'd rather use Speier as a setup guy.

And he had a real fine year in that role in 2005. He's not likely to pitch this well in 2006, but he is a good bet to make a useful contribution.

And you can say pretty much the same of all of the other guys in the bullpen. I don't expect any of the guys in the plan to be bad, but I'd be surprised if they were as good as they were last year. As a group that is. Any one of them could easily turn in a good year.

Dustin McGowan is the exception to this. I don't know exactly what to expect of him but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had a significant role (primary setup guy perhaps) by the end of the season. He's not really in the mix right now, but is probably first in line if/when help is needed.

Which brings us to B. J. Ryan. I love to watch dominating pitchers. I'm not sure that the money spent on Ryan was spent wisely (his list of comparable pitchers won't exactly blow you away, but they're not true comps. Ryan struggled for years and has been a lights out closer for two years), but he's probably as good a bet as any closer in baseball to be both healthy and effective over the balance of the contract and I'll enjoy seeing him pitch more frequently than I have in the past.

The signing makes all kinds of sense in another way. I may not think it's a good idea to anoint a closer, but designated closers are a fact of life in today's game and I don't expect this to change quickly. And any time you get a chance to go from problematic to elite at any position it rates to help a lot.

Maybe (and only maybe) more than the raw numbers of runs saved. After all, the Blue Jays under-performed their pythagorean projections and had a relatively poor closer. Keep everything the same as last year and substitute Ryan for Batista and ... well they still don't make the playoffs. Hell they probably don't win more that a handful more games. I'll take a handful of additional wins from any position.

As with the starters, a fan can be optimistic that the bullpen will be somewhere between good and excellent. I'm expecting it to regress to being just a shade above average.

I commented last year about how there seemed to be a taste for nibblers in the organization. Certainly wasn't the case last year. The staff was broadly average in strikeouts and well above average in control. As a fan I approve (I hate to watch major league pitchers nibble), and from the point of view of analysis, the change was for the better.

Defensive Overview:

One long-standing point of irritation has been addressed. Not that it cost a lot, but Zaun has always been easier to run on than you'd like. Molina's going to disappoint anybody who expects him to completely shut down the opposition running game, but he rates to help a lot in containing them.

The infield is a potential concern. There's no reason to fear than Hill can't do the job at second, but he is replacing a fine defensive player in Hudson. And Adams is kind of marginal at shortstop. Not horrible, but you would like better. Given that most of the Jays' pitchers need to get groundball outs to be effective, well I'm not forecasting disaster or anything, but it's an issue.

Glaus can be reasonably expected to be in the same general range as what the Jays used last year, and Overbay is probably going to be a slight downgrade at first.

Overall, the infield was a little below average last year and if anything I'd expect it to be a little worse in 2006.

By contrast, the outfield should continue to be very good. I wouldn't be concerned from a defensive point of view with either of Rios or Johnson in center (and Rios throws quite well) but Wells is already established there. Catalanotto is the weak point and he's not what you'd call bad.

I'd expect a slightly below average defensive team and a potentially frustrating one at that -- if the Jay's over-react to the potential problems in the middle infield they could end up pushing John McDonald into the mix more than is healthy.

Manager: John Gibbons

I can't honestly say I've got a good feel for Gibbons. He's clearly clearly confident in his evaluation of a player and doesn't let a hot spell (like Gabe Gross' imitation of Babe Ruth in spring training last year) change his mind on who the best options are. He's unusually patient. Very few managers would have stayed with Alexis Rios as long as he did. He eventually did bench Rios briefly but that was for lack of effort not lack of results.

His interaction with Ted Lilly was kind of odd. Lilly was pitching unexpectedly poorly and didn't seem to be listening to the coaching staff. Can't find the exact quote now, but Gibbons said something to the effect that you can't make a guy listen and that he hoped Lilly would work out his problems. Somehow I think Billy Martin might have had a slightly different take on the situation. (Not that I'm advocating the Martin approach)

He doesn't seem to have much if any input on team construction and if this bothers him he's never let this slip to the public at large.

His pinch-hitters were great. Probably luck, but you know you can make anybody look bad by talking up everything that didn't work and calling everything that did work "luck".

He's clearly not afraid of young talent and might be showing a knack for turning talent into results (the Rios situation notwithstanding). Brad Arnsberg is going to get the lion's share of any credit handed out for the pitching staff's results last year, but those results sure aren't a negative on Gibbons' record.

I'd never really noticed it, but he's not particularly patient with his starters. Only 6 slow hooks (second fewest in the AL) and 26 quick hooks (second most in the AL). Not too surprising given how successful the bullpen was.

His handling of relief pitchers is interesting. 12 attempted saves of more than one inning. It says something about the structure of the game that this is the second highest total in the majors. No real surprise given that the closer had been a reasonably successful starter. He made a lot of mid-inning pitching changes (often to attempt to gain the platoon advantage) but didn't have an awful lot of one batter appearances. While he may have brought the relief pitcher in with an eye on the platoon advantage, he generally stuck with the reliever if he seemed effective -- and that was the case fairly often last year.

He does like to call for a lot of pitchouts (only Torre and Scioscia called more), but it didn't work out all that well. In effect he gave up 41 free balls in exchange for two caught stealing. (Called 45 pitch-outs, the runner was moving 4 times and was caught 3 times, with a 24.4% caught stealing percentage the rest of the time)

Don't know. I don't see him having a long run, but there nothing I can see in his record that would make me afraid of employing him.

2006 ZiPS Projections - Toronto Blue Jays

Name               P     G   AB    R    H  2B  3B  HR  RBI   BB    K  SB  CS   AVG   OBP   SLG 
Glaus              3b  115  419   71  111  23   1  30   87   66  109   4   2  .265  .368  .539 
Overbay*           1b  154  531   81  161  42   1  16   82   77  108   1   0  .303  .390  .476 
Catalanotto*       lf  120  399   54  119  28   4   7   53   33   52   1   2  .298  .363  .441 
Wells              cf  155  625   88  175  35   3  30  102   49   85   7   2  .280  .333  .490 
Hillenbrand        1b  150  582   81  167  34   2  16   79   26   76   4   1  .287  .334  .435 
Molina             c   115  398   43  117  20   0  14   64   22   38   0   2  .294  .332  .450 
Barker*            1b  134  482   63  122  29   2  19   74   48  127   2   1  .253  .323  .440 
Hinske*            3b  148  511   78  130  32   2  16   69   57  118   9   4  .254  .334  .419 
Hill               ss  136  479   71  131  31   2   8   55   41   56   4   1  .273  .340  .397 
Phillips           c   130  420   48  112  25   0  11   60   35   52   0   1  .267  .331  .405 
Johnson            rf  136  436   61  119  22   4   8   54   25   85   4   4  .273  .331  .397 
Zaun#              c   122  390   51   96  17   1   9   48   62   67   1   2  .246  .349  .364 
Rios               rf  148  530   76  147  28   6   9   63   35  103  13   7  .277  .326  .404 
Cosby              3b  119  422   48  115  31   0  10   51   24   69   1   2  .273  .313  .417 
Roberts            3b  127  456   68  108  20   2  17   58   53  115   4   2  .237  .323  .401 
Adams*             ss  141  511   73  133  29   4   8   59   51   62   9   3  .260  .330  .380 
Griffin*           lf  134  479   69  112  22   1  23   74   47  140   1   1  .234  .305  .428 
Hattig#            3b   93  315   39   75  18   1  10   35   34   77   3   3  .238  .315  .397 
Lind*              1b  132  475   66  124  34   1   8   55   32   72   1   1  .261  .311  .387 
Cannon*            1b  123  416   55   99  24   2  18   61   25   93   0   1  .238  .284  .435 
Figueroa#          2b  116  406   51  111  23   1   4   40   25   28   3   4  .273  .317  .365 
Davenport*         lf  103  379   42   94  27   1   9   46   25   65   1   2  .248  .294  .396 
Negron*            cf  116  440   57  108  19   2   9   44   26   91  10   6  .245  .288  .359 
Mottola            rf  120  448   51   98  20   1  13   53   26  102   2   1  .219  .266  .355 
McDonald           2b   73  172   17   42   7   1   1   14   10   24   3   2  .244  .292  .314 
Tablado            3b   96  339   39   72  16   1   8   36   18  111   3   1  .212  .256  .336 
Mahoney            c    89  268   27   59  15   1   3   25   15   46   1   0  .220  .265  .317 
Santos             ss  121  434   52   94  14   3   8   45   22  103   2   2  .217  .256  .318 
Lydon              cf  133  508   66  116  12   5   2   37   41  111  33  20  .228  .290  .283 

Name                 W   L    ERA   G  GS     INN    H   ER  HR   BB    K 
Ryan*                6   1   2.80  73   0    74.0   52   23   4   29  105 
Halladay            14   6   3.16  25  25   185.0  173   65  17   28  141 
Burnett             13   7   3.59  28  28   183.0  163   73  14   61  154 
Speier               4   2   3.71  66   0    68.0   61   28  10   20   56 
Frasor               5   3   3.78  63   0    69.0   62   29   5   30   56 
Schoeneweis*         4   3   4.05  69   0    60.0   58   27   4   24   44 
Towers              12  11   4.15  32  30   193.0  214   89  26   30  102 
Lundberg             6   6   4.34  53   2    83.0   86   40  10   23   59 
Chacin*             11  11   4.43  32  32   189.0  193   93  22   71  121 
Chulk                2   2   4.68  62   0    75.0   75   39  10   31   51 
Ramirez             10  11   4.69  27  27   167.0  188   87  25   33  100 
Lilly*              10  12   4.69  29  29   165.0  161   86  25   70  136 
Walker               5   5   4.73  38   6    78.0   83   41  12   33   39 
Baldwin              5   7   4.81  28  15   116.0  131   62  18   25   56 
Marcum               8   9   4.91  30  26   165.0  184   90  34   28  118 
Banks                9  11   4.94  28  27   164.0  187   90  34   24  110 
League               4   6   5.11  41  10   104.0  111   59  13   47   62 
Perkins              5   7   5.12  23  21   123.0  135   70  15   51   75 
Weber                2   2   5.17  41   0    54.0   63   31   6   19   32 
Wolfe                3   5   5.18  36   3    66.0   73   38   9   26   32 
Burnside*            4   5   5.26  34   7    65.0   69   38  10   30   47 
Downs*               7  10   5.39  32  26   157.0  181   94  31   45   88 
McGowan              2   4   5.55  21  16    94.0  104   58  19   31   69 
Tallet*              3   6   5.70  22  15    90.0  103   57  18   34   55 
Arnold               2   5   6.00  32  12    99.0  110   66  22   45   66 
Houston              3   5   6.34  34   5    71.0   72   50  16   49   67 

Disclaimer:  ZiPS projections are computer-based projections of performance.  
Performances have not been allocated to predicted playing time in the majors - 
many of the players listed above are unlikely to play in the majors at all in 2006.  
ZiPS is projecting equivalent production - a .240 ZiPS projection may end up 
being .280 in AAA or .300 in AA, for example.  Whether or not a player will play 
is one of many non-statistical factors one has to take into account when predicting 
the future.