Toronto Blue Jays

It won't be news to almost anybody who's at Primer on purpose that the Blue Jays have a sabermetrically aware GM (and has a card-carrying stathead working for him). In my opinion, far too much is made of this. It does not mean that stupid organizations will give you their good players (though it could happen). Indeed, it's a mistake to assume that organizations that don't have a stathead at the helm are stupid. The Blue Jays of the late 80s and early 90s were pretty much driven by scouting and they were a very smart organization.

There are only a few types of good players likely to be underappreciated by teams using scouting-based evaluation. Position players who walk a lot (and probably strike out a bunch), position players blocked by an established veteran and pitchers who are effective at getting people out while not impressing a radar gun. (Scouting-driven organizations will also often overvalue excellent athletes who can't hit, but a sabermetric organization isn't likely to have this type of player in stock)

So, what are the big advantages of a sabermetric organization? A sabermetric GM should not be paying a lot of money for small improvements. (Which means letting players walk rather than paying more than they're objectively worth ' provided there's an adequate fallback position) They should understand that there is no shortage of players at or near average. Only excellent players are in really short supply.

A stathead shouldn't buy into the concept of proven veteran (MLEs and the like do not predict the future. Instead they tell you how good a prospect is now) And they shouldn't evaluate players on factors that depend on how they're used (saves, RBI) or are in some way partially dependent on other players (Wins, runs, RBI)

Does that mean that there's no role for scouts in a sabermetric organization? Hardly. You've got to find the raw talent. Then you have to have people who can turn talent into ability. The numbers serve as a sanity check. (And they're of limited value before a prospect reaches AA)

All of this to say that there's no magic formula. If the numbers say a kid can play and the scouts say he can't, my money's on the numbers. If the numbers say he can't play and a scout who has demonstrated good judgment says he can (and can tell you why) find a place for him in the organization and let the results tell their story.

It's not that long ago that the Blue Jays were a big spending, big market team. They made money then too. (Paul Beeston was quoted as saying something very similar to, "Of course we make money. I wouldn't be doing a very good job if we didn't.") The management team had made the case to their owners that the players were worthwhile investments.

You know, it wasn't the size of the market that's changed over the years. What's really changed is that ownership hasn't been willing to lay out large sums of money in the hope (well, I'd call it expectation) of making it back.

Since perception of team quality is about twice as important as actual team quality in explaining revenue, the decision to let a lot of talent go in order to cut payroll proved to be a money loser in the long run. Which is what usually happens when you make big cuts to the payroll.

I mentioned Bill James' 7 factors in the Tigers article. Bottom line, they suggest little change in the Jays' record. A more detailed assessment leads me to think that they should be a slightly improved. I expect them to be on the fringes of the wildcard race provided one of their key players (Delgado, Wells, Halladay) don't get hurt. They're unusually well placed to deal with any other injuries.

The same regulars return at 8 positions. Even the bench is fairly similar. This is no surprise given that the 2003 position players were as a whole, pretty good defensively and probably the third-best offensive team in the league. (And none of the regulars was a sore spot. It's a tough team to improve a lot. No really bad players)

There's a fair amount of talent in the pipeline but it's not likely that any important position players will be on the scene until 2005.

It's overstating things to say that the only part of the pitching staff that remains the same is Halladay, but not by much. I expect the changes to be positive overall. While two of their more effective pitchers from last year are gone, a pile of guys who just didn't get the job done are gone too. I like a number of the new additions to the staff.

They were 9th in the majors in team ZR (though not a whole lot better than average)

I think it's fair to sum the 2003 Jays up as an excellent outfield and a slightly below average infield. The team did a poor job against the running game. I'm hesitant to place too much blame on the catchers since the pitchers (and team approach to the running game) are an important issue. Still, it's a fact that Myers in particular has never thrown well. Cash can throw well, but it's not a good thing if he's playing a lot.

For 2004, I'd expect the infield to be a tad better and the outfield to be a little worse. Yes, Werth, Johnson (and perhaps Rios) rate to be pretty good defensively and they're the ones getting the extra playing time. They are replacing the best in the majors (at least by ZR)

Overall, I don't expect a big difference; something close to average, perhaps a little better than that.

The offence:

(Listed below is what the Jays got from the position ' as opposed to the starter at the position. The ZR column is the rank at the position. IE Blue Jay shortstops combined for the 14^th best ZR in the majors. )

The most obvious candidate for a big drop-off is left field. Even then, there's an outside chance that one of the outfield prospects could be ready. If that happens, this is likely to be the second-best offense in the league. If not, well, it's still likely to score a lot of runs. I mean you have Delgado, Wells, and no obvious passengers. How bad can it be?

One of the things I've noticed is that there are an unusual number of good candidates for platooning. May be tough to arrange given the number of pitchers teams want to carry.

Catcher: Greg Myers/Kevin Cash

Myers is coming off a stone fluke. He's a solid bet for a serious decline (I think ZIPS is far too optimistic). Even so, a lot of teams would settle for .320/.420 (OBP/SLG) from a platoon player who works cheap.

He's never thrown well and last year the opposition stole 50 in 62 attempts. Far too many managers pay far too much attention to this. Obviously, this isn't a positive but it's not the end of the world. And if push comes to shove, you can carry a caddy for him.

Last year, his platoon partner was Tom Wilson. Wilson didn't handle the running game any better than Myers. I hope that's not the reason for settling on Kevin Cash as Myers' platoon partner because I think he's fairly likely to hit like Brandon Inge and I don't think Cash throws as well as Inge.

All in all, I'd expect the Jays to decline 10 net runs at the position. More if Myers can't handle a regular workload (a reasonable thing to worry about given his age)

I'd expect the drop-off to be larger, but Myers spent significant time at DH last year. I don't see that as likely to happen this year. Cash just isn't good enough to make that attractive.

Guillermo Quiroz might well be the best catcher in the organization, but I wouldn't expect him to be truly ready. He needs to improve quite a bit to be an impact player; right now, he's just a young, interesting player. I would expect to see much of him in 2004 unless it's an emergency and they're in the hunt for a playoff spot.

First Base: Carlos Delgado

During the lean years, Delgado was often the focus of a vocal minority of complaining fans. I guess the logic goes something like, if you're so good how can the team stink?

The answer of course is "very." He gets by with the glove ' by reputation a little below average, but more or less average by virtually every metric. And he can hit. Sure, last year was his second-best season and he's likely to decline a bit but I wouldn't expect him to be worse than he was in 2002 and that's a pretty good player. He simply hasn't had a bad year in quite some time and I don't expect him to start now.

I make him likely to decline around 5 net runs. However, if he gets hurt, the decline at the position will be sharp since players at his ability level are always in short supply.

In effect, it will push somebody like Jayson Werth into the lineup. Not that Werth is a horrible player. He's all you can reasonably expect from the first guy off the bench. (It may not be Werth. There are more than a few guys at or about this ability level in the organization)

Second Base: Orlando Hudson

He's turned out to be a much better player than I expected. At least against right-handed pitching; he's a career .168/.210/.221 hitter against lefties. He's aware of the problem and is working to solve it. I'd bet against him succeeding. I can think of more than a few switch-hitters who started out inadequate against lefties while being effective against northpaws. Most ended up giving up switch-hitting (J. T. Snow, Orlando Merced, Reggie Jefferson among others) and the rest continued to have larger than normal platoon splits. I can't think of any exceptions (There are plenty of exceptions the other way and the reason is obvious. There's a word for position players who are inadequate against right-handed pitching. Unemployed.)

This is his last chance to avoid becoming a platoon player and matters are made more complicated because I expect the Jays to at least be on the fringe of the playoff race and in Dave Berg, they have a player who rates to be adequate (or at least a heck of a lot better than Hudson against lefties. I used to like Berg a lot as a backup, but it looks like I overestimated him)

Hudson's surprised a lot of people with his glove. It's one reason why he's stayed in the lineup against lefties. Still, Berg isn't that bad.

I'd expect a small net improvement this year. I don't think it's likely that the Jays will live with what Hudson's been producing against lefties.

Third Base: Eric Hinske

He was over his head as a rookie and came back to earth fast. I expect him to bounce back (though not quite as high as ZIPS, put me down for .350/.450). He was also really struggling in the field at the start of the year. Still, he's not exactly Dean Palmer and I expect improvement, even if he remains a below-average fielder.

Again, I'd expect the Jays to be a little better here than in 2003.

Shortstop: Chris Woodward

Strictly a generic shortstop and is probably just holding the job for Russ Adams (who I make a year or more from being ready. Adams is at present more promising than good)

Woodward has played regularly for two years and has had massive platoon splits both times. Combine his 2002 versus righties and last year versus lefties and you get something like a .357 on-base and a .530 slugging. Want to bet on that ever happening? Of course, if you combine the bad sides, well it's basically Hal Lanier ' without Lanier's glove.

Not that Woodward is a bad defensive player. He makes the plays you expect a major league shortstop to make.

Chris Gomez has replaced Mike Bordick. (I leave the jokes to you) Personally, I wouldn't advocate giving Gomez a roster spot. Berg can't handle shortstop in the long run but he should be adequate in an emergency. (and he and Catalanotto can handle second and third in the short term). I just don't think Gomez brings enough to the table to justify a roster spot. There's nobody he can pinch-hit for. He's not an attractive choice as a pinch-runner (I expect that there are faster pitchers on the roster). Latest word out of spring training suggests that he won't make the team.

Left Fielder: Frank Catalanotto

It's a waste of his talents that he's playing outfield. He's not much better than an average hitter for a corner outfielder. He's a heck of a hitter for a second baseman. He's not a good defensive left-fielder (or second or third for that matter)

The Cat should end up in a platoon, most likely with Jayson Werth, as he simply isn't good enough to be playing when he has the platoon disadvantage. If you can't do better than him against lefties it's a significant black mark against the manager and/or the GM. Werth would seem to be a significantly better defensive outfielder than Catalanotto even if he is likely to be marginal as an offensive corner outfielder.

Obviously, this is a significant drop-off from last year. Exactly how much depends on who is playing.

Center Field: Vernon Wells

I may be the only person willing to admit this, but I wasn't particularly high on Wells going into 2003. I guess you can tell that I've changed my mind. ZIPS sees him much the same way I do; likely to be a hair worse than last year.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he consolidates all of his gains and moves on to an even higher level of play (though I'd bet against it). He's already very good and has a chance to be a major star. It's scary to think how good he could be with just a bit more plate discipline. And given that to date he's reacted to every professional challenge in a very positive manner, I wouldn't bet against his doing exactly that.

Right Field: Reed Johnson

I doubt he'll be a regular in the long run. He looks more like a good 4th outfielder to me. In fact, I'd bet on Rios being better than he is now, never mind in the future. And Johnson is a natural platoon partner for Catalanotto.(Not that I think his 2003 numbers against lefties are an ability level)

Still, I don't think it's a good idea for players to learn in the majors with the arbitration clock running. As long as Rios and Gross can get something out of their time in AAA, I think the long-term interests of the organization are best served by keeping them at AAA. The difference between Rios and Johnson is unlikely to be substantial in 2004. I don't think it's at all likely that playing Johnson will cost the Jays a playoff spot. Johnson rates to be below average for a starting right fielder, but he's also a pretty good defensive player. And I expect the Jays to see more than their fair share of lefties (though these days it's not all that common to carry a left-handed spot starter. Most teams seem to just run the rotation without considering the opposition)

Actually, I think the Jays were hoping that they could revive Chad Hermanson's career. There was a chance that he'd make an adequate placeholder for a year. Doesn't seem to have worked out, but you never know.

Overall, I'd expect a small drop-off from 2004. Johnson's glove will cover some of the offensive difference from 2003. You'd like better and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the Jays making a deal for a stopgap corner outfielder.

DH: Josh Phelps

ZIPS really likes him. Might be a tad optimistic, but I've always liked his chances to be an impact player. His splits aren't as extreme as Woodward's, but he did hit lefties a fair bit better in 2003 and he really hit righties in 2002. Combine those two partial seasons and you get something in the same general range as his ZIPS.

Seems a little optimistic to me, but I'd expect Phelps to give the Jays a little more than they got from the DH in 2003.

Pitching overview:

All things considered the Jays had a roughly league average staff in 2003. However, unlike the position players there were plenty of guys who weren't getting the job done. Very few of them are back.

Rotation:

Here's an interesting way to look at the rotation in 2003. Halladay and everybody else.

Halladay and then 4 days of rain didn't really work out. To be fair, that wasn't really the plan. Cory Lidle really didn't work out and there really was no acceptable option in the organization. You know things are dire when a castoff from the Rangers (Doug Davis) ends up in the rotation. Practically by definition, the Rangers don't have any pitching to spare.

Another sign of a world gone mad; Kelvim Escobar was failing in the bullpen. He had an ERA approaching 8. So he became a starter ' and pitched well. (An ERA of 3.92 as a starter.) Well he'd probably have turned it around in the bullpen, but he was a heck of a lot more useful in the rotation.

Everybody but Halladay has been replaced. I've always liked Ted Lilly and I've always been suspicious of Miguel Batista. (I'm not as optimistic as ZIPS is). Batista tends to be the more effective of the two ' just goes to show that you shouldn't trust your feelings in evaluating a player. Between they're a fair bet to take their regular turns and be reasonably effective. Planning on 60 league average (maybe a bit better) starts seems reasonable.

I'm far less optimistic about Pat Hentgen. He pitched pretty well in 2003, but serious injuries have taken away much of his stuff. He's a sizable risk to either get hurt, pitch badly or both. He's been getting killed this spring but I would not attach any significance to that.

The 5th spot is still pretty much open. A year ago I'd have assumed it was Jason Arnold's to lose. Still might be the case, but the organization seems to like Josh Towers more. Pitching being what it is, both are likely to pitch a fair amount this year. Neither is likely to be anything special. (I don't consider myself any kind of a scout but I went to an Ottawa game when Harold Brooks was in town and we happened to get Arnold. Can't say I was impressed and he was pitching against John Stephens ' whose stuff isn't much better than mine. Even with that kind of contrast, neither of us realized that we were watching a prospect on the mound. Still, that's a danger of scouting I've seen Randy Johnson have nothing. One game tells you nothing.) Neither of them is likely to kill you.

That leaves Halladay. He was given a heavier workload than I'd have been happy with. Maybe he can handle it. Maybe the problems won't show up this year. His line looks an awful lot like a Ferguson Jenkins (good control, a few gopher balls as a consequence) year and Jenkins survived a much heavier load for years.

Pitchers get hurt, but there's no particular reason to fear for Halladay in 2004. And if he's healthy, he's likely to be as good as any pitcher not named Pedro Martinez.

If everything goes according to plans, the Jays could chop off as much as 80 runs from last year's totals. Of course, everything won't go according to plan and 40 runs is a more reasonable hope.

The bullpen:

It really wasn't as bad as a lot of people made out, but it sure wasn't a strength. Actually a couple of guys pitched fairly well (Lopez, Kershner ' they're back and likely to contribute), a few guys who weren't awful (Miller and Towers ' they're back and at least one is likely to make the staff) and a pack of guys who pitched poorly ' and they're all gone.

They've added 3 guys who rate to pitch pretty well (Ligtenberg, Speier and Adams) and a loogy (for no obvious reason frankly. But these days everybody needs to have at least one. One to use and one to have as a security blanket.)

It's not clear to me who will end up closing -- probably Lopez more or less by default. It's not a big deal; whoever ends up with the job rates to be adequate. And will have a new home in 2005. There's no chance that Riccardi will pay the going rate for somebody who piled up a bunch of saves.

Again, if everything works out the bullpen could go from a weakness to a strength. It's not likely that everything will work out. Even so, a 20 run improvement seems quite reasonable.

A fascinating concept. Chuck everybody who failed and cast around for some guys who rate to be adequate. If it comes close to working, color me impressed.

Manager: Carlos Tosca

You know I really don't have any kind of handle on Tosca. I'm not sure why Riccardi picked him. (beyond the obvious ' that he didn't want Buck Martinez) But you know the more I thought about it the more he kind of grows on me.

Sure I disagreed with a few things. Escobar in the bullpen, his handling of the catching situation and his use of Catalanotto (at that, it's tough to use him as a backup infielder with Berg and Bordick on the bench. And I don't think he had any say in that)

Balanced against that, he doesn't seem to have any kind of a veteran fetish and he seems to have resisted the urge to be clever. I don't really see any positives, but I don't see him doing damage either and a manager can do a lot of damage.

2004 ZiPS Projections

Name               P    AVG   OBP   SPC    G   AB    R    H  2B  3B  HR  RBI   BB    K  SB  CS 
Delgado*           1b  .288  .421  .561  156  553  105  159  38   1  37  115  110  132   1   0 
Phelps             dh  .291  .375  .545  134  481   82  140  30   1  30   96   54  141   1   1 
Wells              cf  .316  .361  .523  161  658  108  208  41   4  29  113   40   82   6   4 
Hinske*            3b  .276  .366  .485  137  511   87  141  40   2  21   82   71  121  12   3 
Rios               cf  .326  .370  .466  124  487   76  159  25   8   9   58   29   80   9   4 
Catalanotto*       lf  .303  .364  .473  124  446   73  135  33   5  11   60   36   54   5   4 
Gross*             rf  .274  .375  .428  128  470   71  129  30   3  12   60   72   97   4   3 
Johnson            rf  .301  .359  .438  130  491   88  148  25   3  12   64   28   74  11   7 
Myers*             c   .278  .347  .460   99  263   36   73  15   0  11   42   28   53   0   2 
Hudson#            2b  .291  .353  .430  151  547   65  159  31   6  11   65   47   86   6   5 
Griffin*           lf  .265  .348  .423  101  359   48   95  20   2  11   48   42   76   1   0 
Werth              rf  .252  .339  .434  110  401   61  101  24   2  15   58   50  116  11   5 
Woodward           ss  .270  .331  .435   99  333   47   90  19   3  10   44   27   70   1   1 
Clark*             3b  .290  .351  .395  110  390   47  113  22   2   5   43   33   30   1   2 
Hermansen          cf  .259  .323  .432  113  359   57   93  19   2  13   51   31  110   8   4 
Quiroz             c   .238  .306  .421  114  390   53   93  29   0  14   56   34   96   0   0 
Cash               c   .235  .307  .396  126  455   56  107  33   2  12   57   43  115   2   1 
Gomez              3b  .256  .297  .403  101  340   35   87  25   2   7   40   16   39   2   2 
Berg               2b  .257  .313  .379   88  272   32   70  19   1   4   30   19   45   0   2 
Rich*              2b  .254  .319  .332   98  358   44   91  17   1   3   33   30   47   1   4 

Name                  ERA   W   L   G  GS     INN    H   ER  HR   BB    K 
Halladay             3.31  18   7  33  33   234.0  224   86  16   40  190 
Lilly*               3.94   9   8  30  26   153.0  135   67  20   50  136 
Adams                4.06   8   5  50  15   133.0  135   60   7   45   92 
Lopez                4.07   4   2  50   5    84.0   79   38   6   32   72 
Ligtenberg           4.12   3   3  59   0    59.0   60   27   6   24   47 
Speier               4.13   4   2  67   0    72.0   69   33   8   22   66 
Batista              4.14  11   7  38  27   176.0  179   81  12   57  117 
Towers               4.69  10   7  31  25   169.0  196   88  25   24   91 
Durocher             4.75   1   2  45   0    53.0   48   28   6   29   57 
Haines               4.76   5   5  52   0    70.0   72   37  10   21   59 
File                 4.76   2   2  47   0    51.0   54   27   4   21   29 
Arnold               4.94   8   7  27  26   153.0  159   84  17   64  109 
de los Santos*       4.94   3   3  51   0    51.0   52   28   5   25   38 
Kershner*            5.12   7   6  51  10   109.0  124   62  17   31   64 
Baker                5.13   8   7  26  24   142.0  162   81  20   42   78 
Chulk                5.18   7   7  30  19   125.0  134   72  15   54   84 
Walker               5.20   7   6  33  22   135.0  153   78  18   46   73 
Cassidy              5.35   5   5  45  12   106.0  112   63  14   49   75 
Frederick            5.37   4   5  46   1    62.0   64   37   9   28   50 
Smith                5.37   6   6  28  22   129.0  142   77  14   60   75 
Hentgen              5.39   6   6  23  18   127.0  141   76  20   46   82 
Chen*                5.41   5   6  37  20   123.0  133   74  25   41  103 
Miller               5.56   8  10  31  27   149.0  159   92  20   74  105 
Chacin*              5.64   5   7  31  14   107.0  122   67  14   47   57