Detroit Tigers

It’s not exactly news that the Tigers haven’t been good for a long time. The high point in recent years was 2000 and that wasn’t so much good as in spitting distance of mediocrity (after all, they only allowed 4 more runs than they scored). As we know, since then it’s been a steep downhill drop -- with last year’s results being unacceptable for an expansion team. I’d love to do an in depth-study of how they got so bad, but that’s beyond the scope of this. Besides, it’s clear that it’s mostly due to an inability to produce impact players.

The Tigers pulled their fences in last year. Many people expected big changes to the park’s profile. Didn’t happen. Baseball-reference.com has the park factor for 2003 at 95 and at 93/94 for 2002.

Why? Well for one thing, park dimensions generally have less to do with park factors than is commonly believed. And frankly, we’re not very good at predicting how a park will play. I know most people expected Turner field to play as a hitter’s park. (It’s been all over the map and they haven’t been tinkering with it much that I’ve heard of)

Second, homerun hitting is only one aspect of offence. There are plenty of parks that are good places to hit homeruns but which don’t inflate scoring much if at all.

As I understand it, this was done to try to appeal to the fans. If that’s the case, it shows a real lack of understanding. What fans want above anything is a winner. When I looked at attendance (and revenue) I was unable to find any statistically significant link between the offensive levels (or HR totals) and attendance outside of things like the McGwire home run chase. You know you’re on to something when batting practice is crowded. But let’s face it, the Tigers didn’t have a Mark McGwire and it’s not like they were creating a home run paradise.

I didn’t get the sense that the Tigers made the adjustment to help the team (maybe I missed it), but I did read more than a few things from fans and writers that suggested that since their team poorly suited their park, this move would help them.

Can’t happen. When a team turns in consistently bad records, it’s due to a lack of talent. No amount of tinkering with a park’s configuration will make a bad team mediocre or a mediocre team good. Good teams win everywhere.

Funny thing though; at least in 2002 the Tigers did a fair job of adjusting to the quirks of the park.

Park factors (The factors that follow aren’t done in the same way as Baseball-reference does them. They’re simply comparing the road and home games – after adjusting them to the same playing time)

I don’t want to make too much of this. There’s an awful lot of noise in a full year's worth of park factors. Cutting them into finer slices won’t help matters. I’m presenting it because I found it an interesting example of the law of unintended consequences.

While the park reduced scoring for both the Tigers and their opponents, the effects were generally quite a bit more severe for the opposition. In particular, the Tigers didn’t have any particular problems hitting home runs there and the opposition did. Triples these days are mostly random events, but the Tigers really did hit a ton more at home than on the road.

So, what happened with the change in the fences? There were a bunch more home runs hit in Comerica, but the other team hit almost all of them. At the same time, a whole bunch of triples went away and they came mostly from the Tigers. Doubles were up, almost exclusively due to the Tigers.

As a side note, much of their off-season activity was probably prompted by the fact that Comerica hasn’t proven to be the huge money generator that they almost certainly planned on. No surprise there. The luster of a new park seems to wear off pretty quickly in the face of a disappointing season and the Tigers have been consistent at disappointing the casual fan if in very little else.

In fact, given that as I understand it the Tigers didn’t get great terms on the money they borrowed for Comerica, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that the new park has hurt the bottom line. That could change if they put a good team on the field, but I think that’s a while away and it will probably take some time to rebuild the fan base.

Decades ago Bill James listed 7 factors that did a reasonable job of identifying teams likely to improve. Here’s how the Tigers fare:

1. Did the team have a poor record? Well yeah. This is an indicator of improvement because bad teams have fewer players who can decline. And there’s a greater likelihood that: a) they’ll have players that stink and b) they’ll look to upgrade them.
2. Did the team decline last year? Regressions both to the mean and to previously established levels are very strong forces. Not that the Tigers' previously established levels are any screaming hell. Again, yes.
3. Did they have a worse record that you’d expect given their runs scored and allowed? As best we can tell this is mostly luck and shouldn’t be expected to carry forward. Again, a big yes. They "should" have won 49 games (the 2002 Tigers "should" have won 52). Much of the decline in 2003 was luck.
4. Did they score fewer runs than you’d expect given their basic batting stats? A few. Again, this is mostly bad luck and you wouldn’t expect it to carry forward to 2004
5. Were they a young team? Again, yes. Exactly where they rank depends on how you weight pitchers and hitters (the pitching staff was easily the youngest in the majors and the position players weren’t exactly a collection of aging veterans. I’d call them the youngest team in the majors but have no strong feelings.) There’s a shortage of players who are both young and talented, but Bob Rich’s first rule of marginal players (better a young bum than an old bum) applies here.
6. Did they play better from the beginning of August on than in the rest of the season? Much to my surprise (after all, they did start out 3-21), no. They were 15-41. Which translates to a 43-win season.
7. Did they have a good AAA team? Toledo was 65-78. I can’t really see anybody there likely to be an impact player. There were a number of old rec.sport.baseball faves hanging around like Tom Evans, Pat Lennon and Ron Wright. I think it makes all of the sense in the world to see if these guys could still play – it’s not like they were blocking significant talent (Bob Rich’s second rule of marginal players. A guy who has done something in the past is always worth more than somebody who’s never done anything is. There is a potential upside even if it’s unlikely). They were done. Too bad.

Put it all together and there are some strong indications of improvement. Of course you’d have guessed that – it’s tough to stay this bad – but at least we had a method to reach the conclusion. What’s more, the moves the Tigers have made this season seem to me to reinforce this technical evaluation.

I think massive improvement is quite likely but even massive improvement takes the Tigers to something like 65 wins. Tough to get excited about that and I think it’s quite unlikely that they’ll be a lot better than that.

Last year’s piece on the Tigers said that there was a potentially outstanding infield, a pretty good defensive catcher and that the outfield could be OK – perhaps helped by the changes to the park.

It didn’t work out that way. I haven’t looked at team defensive win shares, but they can’t be good (in particular given how win shares starts with the mild presumption that bad teams are poor defensively).

The Tigers made more errors than any team. They were 25th in ZR with only one position (left field) above average and their infielders coming in between 23rd and 26th. (Center field and right field were almost spot- on average in ZR) UZR sees things slightly differently, with center being the strongest, first and the corner outfield being pretty close to average. 3B was good when halter was playing there and Munson and Young were pretty much doing what you’d expect. And it often wasn’t pretty.

Overall, not good and if you’re generous you could grade them C-.

So, what lies ahead? Well they likely won’t be a whole lot better. I’m betting something close to league average outside of third. And while there’s a reasonable chance that Munson will be better than last year, I’d bet against him actually being good.

The outfield should be passable, though I’m not clear that they have an acceptable long-term backup in center. White can play center in an emergency, but I can’t see him handling the position for an extended spell.

Catcher? Inge wasn’t bad you know, so I doubt that Rodriguez will be a whole lot better. The backups may well be better than Walbeck and Hinch, but that doesn’t rate to matter a lot.

The infield should be a little better than last year, but I don’t see it likely to actually be a big positive. Vina has been very good on the double play in the past and has played with some excellent defensive players and some less than stellar ones. However, it generally takes a while for a new DP combo to gel.

The AL Ave column is the average OPS+ for the position in the AL from 2001 to 2003. The 2003-2000 columns are the OPS+ that the Tigers got from the position – as opposed to the starter. (I’m using OPS+ because it’s easy to calculate, adequate for my purposes and saves a heck of a lot of space. Complaints taken at our Antarctic office)

Not a pretty picture, above average at two positions (and not by a heck of a lot) and nowhere close to replacement level at three. I make them around 170 runs worse than an average AL offense.

You can clearly see a plan in place at every position. I may not like the chances of the plan working out, but they’ve addressed most of the real disaster areas. There’s no position that can’t be better than league average with a little luck. (It’s not likely that all of the best reasonable cases will come through of course)

And no injuries. However, the situation is truly dire in only two positions, third base and catcher. The fallback positions are relatively good at second, the corner outfield spots, first base and DH and it’s been a while since the Tigers could say that.

Put it all together and just short of 700 runs is a reasonable target given good health. It could be better than that with both good health and a few players either developing or returning to form. Put me down for 680 runs.

Catcher: Ivan Rodriguez (2002 Starter: Brandon Inge)

Rodriguez has now caught 1564 games. Unless I’ve missed somebody, I make him the 25th catcher to catch 1500 games. Few of even the greatest catchers in history were able to handle a heavy workload after 1,500 games.

Bob Boone was able to play regularly but had an awful lot of lean years. What’s more typical is that they started to need more days off, the bat started to go (generally pretty slowly) and the defense seems to go faster than the glove. Two of the few guys who can even sensibly be compared to Rodriguez in terms of throwing, Bench and the young Gary Carter, went from sensational to adequate and eventually in Carter’s case, to poor.

Rodriguez may have an extra year or two in him because he came up so young (in other words, his total in the majors is pretty much his career total of games caught), but Johnny Bench didn’t. What may work in his favor right now is that last year was his first full season since 1999.

I wouldn’t bet heavily on him catching 140 plus games and I’d give him a better than fair chance of slipping. Still, that’s the big advantage of really good players. If his arm slips (as it has), he’s still a net positive. And if his bat slips, he’s still a solid bet to be well above the positional norms.

This, of course, means that even the worst case has the Tigers improving massively here. One of the stunning things about last year’s catching train wreck is that bad as Inge was, Matt Walbeck (his primary backup) was worse

So, am I saying it was a mistake to sign Rodriguez? Not at all. The Marlins made a realistic offer, but the Tigers weren’t in a position to be realistic. They have to convey that they’re serious about clawing their way back to respectability. Although Rodriguez is generally overrated, probably due to decline, and objectively overpaid, he’s a genuine star and plays a position where the need for improvement is glaringly obvious.

Speaking of Inge, he doesn’t seem to have accepted that he lost his job for bad play. Put me down as predicting a problem here. He doesn’t want to be a backup and bench players who don’t accept their role are more trouble than they’re worth. Doesn’t have to be bad for the Tigers though. The best thing that could happen (besides him suddenly becoming a good player) is to part company with him. For whatever reason, they’ve never been able to look at him objectively, choosing to focus on his athleticism in general and his arm in particular and ignoring the fact that he just can’t hit. (And of course, bench players who raise a fuss generally have to find a new home. I don’t attach much significance to chemistry, but there’s no reason why anybody should put up with whining from an unimportant player. If Jim Palmer is complaining, you’d better hope the manager can deal with it because he’s staying.)

They’re experimenting with him as a utility player right now. I expect they’ll come to their senses fairly quickly. This makes as much sense as buying lottery tickets as your retirement plan.

Mike Difelice isn’t a wonderful player, but he’s a reasonable backup catcher. You’d like better but he probably won’t kill you if you have to slot him in from time to time. And the Tigers won’t be tempted to use him more than his talents warrant.

First Base: Carlos Pena

He’s been disappointing to many people, even if his career to date is pretty well in line with what he had done in the minors. He’s adequate right now and could still improve. In fact, he’s one of the few Tigers with any kind of a shot to be an impact player. Don’t get me wrong; it’s more likely that he’ll simply stay at his established level of talent. But remember, if this is disappointing, at least he’s adequate. The Tigers need more disappointments like Pena.

Against that, he simply hasn’t been adequate against left-handed pitching. It doesn’t like the Tigers are in any kind of hurry to platoon him and I agree. I’d bet on Chris Shelton out-hitting him against lefties this year, but in the long run, it rates to be better for the Tigers to confront Pena’s problems with lefties rather than work around it. The difference between the two might swing a game this year, bat a) I’d bet against it and b) that game doesn’t matter. The Tigers should be thinking about the long run.

Pena has a reputation as a good glove man. Doesn’t show up in the statistical record. Not that he’s a disaster or anything. He’s barely below average by UZR and a little worse than that by ZR.

I noticed that Dan’s Diamond Mind projections have Dmitri Young rated as the best defensive player on the team at first. His career ZR is pretty good, but he really hasn’t played there much. He might well be better than Pena with the glove, but I’m betting we never see him there.

Second base: Fernando Vina (2002 starter Warren Morris)

I really hate to rain on anybody’s parade, but signing Vina is a move I just don’t get. Sure he was an underrated player; got on base at a good clip, turned the DP well and had good range. Thing is, that’s not the player the Tigers are likely to get. He’ll soon be 35 and he’s clearly slipped -- to the point that he’s not a lock to be better than (say) Morris or Brent Abernathy. (Again, don’t get me wrong. Vina is the best bet among the three at the plate or in the field. Nevertheless, there’s no small chance of Vina going Easley on the Tigers. Sure, neither Morris nor Abernathy is young but there’s no real upside to them and Vina could recover his form. 6 million over two years is a healthy chunk of money. The other two will work for meal money.) And unlike Rodriguez, he’s never really been a star.

All things considered, the Tigers have a chance of getting adequate production from the spot. However, I think the most likely result is the same as last year. Somewhat below average with both the bat and in the field

Third base: Eric Munson

They threw him in at the deep end – something a team as bad as the Tigers should do. After all, he has no chance to help a team at first and his raw tools are adequate for third. Besides, the Tigers played Dean Palmer at third for years. Raw as he was, Munson was something of an upgrade on Palmer. I expect him to be poor but somewhat improved this year. Over the years there have been a lot of attempted conversions to third. The success rate hasn’t been what you’d call terrific – third is a much tougher position than most people think and it’s a different type of position. Many players with better tools than Munson have been horrible at third.

At the plate, well I’m not a fan of the type of player but Munson wasn’t the problem -- that honor belongs to Shane Halter (who played a lot and didn’t hit a lick). Munson was above average for the position and there’s some reason for optimism. He’ll always strike out a lot, but a very small improvement in plate discipline could go a long way.

Keep Brandon Inge away from any substantial playing time, don’t obsess about the strikeouts, live with his learning the position and there’s a better than fair chance that the position will be a positive for the Tigers. Nothing special mind you. Say a .330 OBP and a .440 SLG with a poor but not hopeless glove.

As with Pena you might be tempted to platoon him. Well, if you had an acceptable option that is. From what I can see his backup (and thus potential platoon partner) is Omar Infante (with Guillen shifting to third). While he makes an OK utility infielder and potential caddy for Munson (and a general pinch-runner), you really don’t want to play him much.

A slightly more appealing option is to try Young at third. Young is bad at third, but it doesn’t cost that much since Munson is no prize with the glove either. This allows somebody else to DH and the Tigers options aren’t bad. Not that I think this is a good idea. The decisions should be based on what’s best in the end for Munson.

Shortstop: Carlos Guillen (2003 starter: Ramon Santiago)

He’ll never be a huge plus but he’s a pretty useful player. He’s decent at getting on base and while he doesn’t have a lot of power, he’s not exactly Jason Tyner. He’s likely to be a better than average offensive shortstop – if nothing close to the elite.

I’m less clear about him in the field. He’s had some very nice zone ratings in the past but he doesn’t look nearly as good by other defensive metrics and he saw substantial playing time at third – rarely a good sign (though in fairness he was moving for Rey Sanchez and if you’re going to play Sanchez, it makes sense to play his at shortstop). He’s a good bet to be better than Santiago was last year.

We’ll probably get a good chance to see Omar Infante. Guillen’s health record hasn’t been good (though his problems generally haven’t affected his athleticism) and in any case Infante should probably play short when Munson is out of the lineup since Guillen is experienced at third and seems to be pretty good there.

Santiago and company were an open wound last year so there’s almost no chance that the Tigers won’t be better this year. Infante is young enough that he could actually become a useful player – I’d bet against it, but it costs the Tigers almost nothing to hope. I guess there’s a chance that Infante winds up in AAA with a generic backup. And that might be best for him in the long run.

Left Field: Rondell White (2003 starter, Craig Monroe)

White bounced back nicely from the worst year of his career. Though he seems to have been around for a long time, he’s not all that old. He’s had a lot of health problems over the years and he’s never really become the player people expected. Still, he’s an asset in the field, likely to help the team at the plate and if he’s hurt for an extended period, there are several viable options.

Craig Monroe did a pretty good job last year. He was probably a tad over his head and he’s not young but he earned the right to be in the mix. I think Cody Ross is a bit better and at least one of the two will probably play a fair amount.

Overall, this rates to be the second-best position on the team. I understand why the Tigers felt the need to change things up, but this was already one of the strongest areas on the team, talent is rarely in short supply in the corner outfield spots and the chances are small that White will be an impact player.

Center Field: Alex Sanchez

A type of player that’s becoming less common. He’s fast, willing and able to use his speed on the bases and in the field. He hits for a decent average, but gets on base less than you’d like for a top of the order guy and doesn’t have a whole lot of power. I think Lance Johnson when I see him, but that’s probably overrating Sanchez. He’s a better player in roto than in real life.

He’s one of those guys who probably has to hit .310 to help you and if he does, he’ll be seriously overpaid (the cult of batting average is still alive and kicking. throw a good batting average together with a bunch of steals and you’re probably talking some serious money)

Right now he’s on the cusp between poor regular and fine 4th outfielder. Given that he’s the only outfielder you can reasonably expect to handle center over the long haul, he’ll pretty much have to play. If the 2003 UZR represents an actual ability level that he can sustain, the position should be average – maybe a hair below. He could improve, but almost all players his age are finished products.

Right Field: Bobby Higginson

He’s frequently disappointed in the past. Last year he was outright wretched for the second time. I made it a better than fair chance that Cody Ross would outplay Higginson if given a legitimate shot, but I just don’t see that happening. There’s almost no chance to move Higginson unless he recovers his form. And if he does, he’ll probably be the best player on the team and thus probably untradeable due to PR considerations.

It is worth noting that after his horrible 1999 Higginson bounced back to have one of his better years. (The Tigers are on the hook for this until 2005). Bounce-backs are a lot more common at 29 than 33, but the Tigers are in a position to give him a long time. Who knows; maybe his problems are a correctable mechanical flaw or a physical problem that something can be done about. (Maybe that’s why they got White – White’s an expert in dealing with pain and injury-imposed limitations)

On balance, the more Higginson plays the less likely this position is to be an asset for the Tigers. Kind of sad really, I hope I’m wrong

DH: Dmitri Young

A real nice year albeit a few miles above his established level of talent. I’m betting that he drops back to the level that he’s shown in the past, which in this park means something like a .335 OBP, and a .470 SLG. Even so, the position rates to be one of the strong points for the Tigers.

Young makes for a nice set of emergency options. It would probably drive a manager to drink to have to play him at third for any kind of extended spell but if you need a guy for a game or two he’s acceptable. He’s also more or less adequate in the corner outfield spots and has done a pretty good job at first in the past.

Pitching overview:

Though the Rangers gave up more runs, it seems obvious that the Tigers were the worst pitching team in the league. They weren’t helped by an error-prone defense that did not do a particularly good job of converting balls in play into outs.

Still, no staff struck out fewer opposing hitters, only three staffs walked more and only three staffs allowed more home runs (despite pitching in a tough home run park)

Things weren’t helped by carrying three Rule 5 pitchers (Ledezma, Spurling and Roney) I’m not saying that this was a mistake – it’s a luxury that a poor team with a poor farm system should afford) – though none of them were a whole lot worse than whatever the Tigers could dig up to fill their place. This year they’re only likely to go with one or two rule 5 guys – I suspect at the behest of Trammell. It’s tough to manage a staff with three relievers you can’t expect to use in important situations.

The 2003 staff was very young -- younger for instance that the Mets staff of 1968 that led their great leap forward. Unfortunately for the Tigers, I don’t see a Tom Seaver or Jerry Koosman on the staff. Youth in itself isn’t nearly as important to pitchers as it is to position players.

(Just in case it’s not clear, RA+ and ERA+ are park adjusted RA and ERA compared to league average. 100 would be average. The higher the better)

Given good luck with health it seems likely that the Tigers could cut their runs allowed to about 800. Not great but a clear step in the right direction

The rotation:

It’s probably going to start out as Jason Johnson, Mike Maroth, Jeremy Bonderman, and Nate Cornejo with Nate Robertson having the inside track for the fifth spot. A host of guys in the same general ability range as Robertson available if required. I expect them to be required.

Johnson’s a serviceable veteran. While he’s had some injury problems in the past, 30 starts with an ERA in the 4.20 range is a very reasonable expectation. That chops a ton of runs off of last year’s totals.

There’s a good chance of Bonderman taking a significant step forward, though it’s much more likely that he’ll still be more promising than actually good. 30 starts in the 4.60 ERA range seems a reasonable if somewhat optimistic guess.

I’m much less optimistic about either of Maroth or Cornejo. I expect at least one of them to be pounded this year. The long-term chance of success for pitchers with strikeout rates as low as they have (and without outstanding control to compensate) just isn’t good. They combined for an ERA of just under 5.20 in just over 380 innings. I’d bet against them pitching this well or this much.

Dan’s Zips projections for Robertson are surprisingly good. He has a better than fair chance to be around league average.

As for the fill-ins, Pat Ahearne pitched pretty well in AAA. I’d be surprised though if he had success in the majors as pitchers who strike out just 57 in 102 innings in AAA don’t tend to make it. Seth Greisinger coming back from years of arm misery is a better bet for success in my opinion, but alas, he signed with the Twins.

All things considered, I’d look for the starters to end up with a staff ERA in the range of 5.10. That’s around 100 runs better than last year, even if it’s still not great.

The bullpen:

Teams tend to start with the closer. There’s no obvious candidate for the job, though one of Matt Anderson, Fernando Rodney or Franklyn German should be at least adequate. I expect German to win the job though I expect Rodney to be the more effective pitcher. (This doesn’t have to be bad. A good middle reliever will almost certainly pitch more than the Tigers’ closer). Anderson is making a decent adjustment to life without the huge fastball and should be an asset either as the closer or in middle relief.

Jamie Walker is miscast as a lefty specialist. He’s a good pitcher who happens to be left-handed rather than somebody who is employed because he’s left-handed. He could probably handle a larger role. Yes, he’s not used exclusively as a loogy but that really shouldn’t be any part of his job description (particularly since he has a bad habit of serving up gopher balls to lefties) He’s a reasonable bet to be among the Tigers most effective pitchers and as such it would pay to use him as much as possible.

Steve Sparks didn’t pitch all that well last year, but he did fill a vital role with the heavy workload he was asked to handle. Al Levine can’t handle that kind of a load and he’s not particularly likely to be more effective than Sparks was; sparkling ERA last year notwithstanding, there are all sorts of caution flags. Not least, his strikeout rate which dipped below 4 per 9 innings last year.

Danny Patterson was a useful pitcher for a number of years. There’s a fair chance that he could be an effective pitcher again this year. I wouldn't expect wonders from him, but there’s no reason why he couldn’t be at least league-average.

Mike Bumatay is a rule 5 guy who could stick and might be adequate in the loogy role. And he has a chance in the long run since guys who strike out more than a batter per inning at any level have a chance.

I’d be surprised if this year’s model isn’t a fair bit better than the 2003 bullpen. It’s not likely to be great, but aside from Levine, there are no ticking bombs (and the options in the wings aren't wretched if not likely to be anything special)

Manager: Alan Trammell

It’s unfair to throw a rookie manager into a situation like the 2003 Tigers. As best I can tell, his sole qualification was that he was Alan Trammell, a fine and popular player.

OK so his popularity buys you a brief honeymoon with the press and the fans. Thing is that crawling out from under a big mess is hard.

Has he shown any ability to handle pitchers? Not that I can see. Has he shown the ability to judge who should be playing? Not that I can see. Assuming that role players are his call (they should be), has he shown the ability to build a productive bench? Not that I can see. Has he shown the ability to turn talent into players? Well he hasn’t had a lot of unfinished talent to work with, but I can’t say I’ve found the results impressive.

To be fair, he’s learning on the job and he’s being judged on a single season and could grow into the job. I’m sure he still commands the respect of the players and given a season like 2003 not every manager could say that.

I think that his hiring was a mistake if it was done for any reasons beyond PR. If he was hired to buy some time while a better team was being assembled, fair enough I guess. The major problem last year was a lack of talent. Trammell didn’t help, but even a great manager couldn’t have done much with the hand he was dealt.

Name               P    AVG   OBP   SPC    G   AB    R    H  2B  3B  HR  RBI   BB    K  SB  CS 
Young#             lf  .298  .369  .506  140  516   66  154  31   5  22   83   49  104   3   2 
Rodriguez          c   .297  .361  .469  128  471   74  140  32   2  15   70   42   82   8   5 
Pena*              1b  .258  .348  .458  145  524   64  135  26   5  23   79   68  145   4   4 
Ross               rf  .275  .328  .469  121  458   71  126  27   4  18   68   32   94  11   4 
Shelton            c   .264  .369  .405  134  420   57  111  25   2  10   52   66   90   1   4 
Guillen#           ss  .284  .364  .394  126  447   70  127  23   4   6   47   55   79   4   4 
White              lf  .278  .333  .443  128  454   57  126  23   2  16   65   29   77   1   4 
Monroe             lf  .263  .325  .454  134  456   64  120  23   2  20   70   38   90   5   4 
Thames             rf  .249  .327  .445  114  409   66  102  28   2  16   61   43   81   2   3 
Munson*            3b  .245  .333  .426  132  486   62  119  23   1  21   72   60  119   1   2 
Petrick            c   .246  .324  .432  117  354   54   87  20   2  14   51   38   84   2   2 
Abernathy          2b  .286  .340  .386  120  482   73  138  25   1   7   54   35   46  10   6 
Higginson*         rf  .251  .339  .395  131  478   59  120  22   4  13   57   60   63  10   9 
Sanchez*           cf  .294  .338  .366  134  506   55  149  19   7   1   41   29   66  45  22 
Inglin             lf  .257  .311  .393  128  471   63  121  20   1  14   61   32   55   3   3 
Morris*            2b  .264  .315  .376  140  473   51  125  24   4   7   49   31   54   5   4 
Infante            ss  .266  .339  .327  133  492   64  131  13   4   3   40   50   60  22   8 
Vina*              2b  .264  .327  .363  125  512   57  135  34   4   3   47   31   32  10  10 
Smith*             ss  .267  .291  .403  116  439   60  117  16   7  10   47   11  116   8   6 
Bautista           ss  .262  .301  .363  105  355   36   93  14   2   6   37   16   92   3   2 
Norton#            3b  .221  .300  .369  118  195   16   43  12   1   5   23   21   52   1   2 
DiFelice           c   .230  .279  .382   63  178   21   41  16   1   3   20   11   36   1   0 
Torres#            cf  .257  .323  .334  126  452   67  116  16   5   3   36   40  110  23  15 
Rodriguez          c   .251  .294  .353   69  215   23   54   6   2   4   21   11   29   1   1 
Ust                3b  .243  .283  .366  117  404   40   98  25   2   7   43   19   83   2   2 
Daigle             1b  .219  .285  .349  126  430   57   94  18   1  12   50   36   89   2   1 
Inge               c   .223  .287  .357  131  431   40   96  22   3  10   46   35   99   4   5 
Estalella          c   .178  .284  .341   42  129   13   23   6   0   5   16   18   45   1   0 
Ozuna              2b  .239  .280  .334   91  305   33   73  15   4   2   24   14   37  10   6 
Klassen            3b  .226  .277  .330  118  446   52  101  19   3   7   41   27  132   7   4 
St. Pierre         c   .221  .275  .308  115  399   42   88  14   0   7   39   26   64   1   2  

Name                  ERA   W   L   G  GS     INN    H   ER  HR   BB    K 
Rodney               3.10   4   3  58   0    61.0   48   21   2   24   64 
Patterson            3.72   3   3  46   0    46.0   48   19   3    9   23 
Anderson             4.09   1   3  49   3    55.0   54   25   6   15   40 
Schmack              4.10   2   4  45   3    68.0   69   31   5   20   38 
Ahearne              4.14   5   9  24  24   148.0  159   68  12   36   68 
Yan                  4.37   3   6  54   0    68.0   69   33  10   21   55 
German               4.38   3   5  68   0    72.0   59   35   4   46   72 
Henkel               4.42   5  11  22  21   112.0  111   55  10   43   77 
Bumatay*             4.42   2   5  46   0    57.0   47   28   4   35   60 
Spurling             4.50   2   5  50   6    88.0   96   44  11   22   47 
Robertson*           4.55   6  11  32  30   184.0  194   93  20   60  106 
Walker*              4.58   2   3  74   0    59.0   60   30  10   15   46 
Johnson              4.60   7  13  30  30   178.0  187   91  19   65  112 
Mears                4.69   4   9  42  14   119.0  129   62  16   33   66 
Loux                 4.73   6  14  30  23   156.0  173   82  15   50   64 
Cornejo              4.74   7  16  31  31   186.0  212   98  17   55   59 
Maroth*              4.75   8  18  31  31   180.0  197   95  22   52   90 
van Hekken*          4.78   5  12  30  29   177.0  202   94  22   44   69 
Eckenstahler*        4.78   2   4  56   0    64.0   57   34   6   38   59 
Kalita*              4.81   4  11  23  21   131.0  144   70  17   38   66 
Levine               4.85   3   8  56   0    65.0   72   35   8   20   31 
Bonderman            4.85   6  16  30  27   154.0  154   83  23   59  121 
Roney                4.94   4  10  36  19   122.0  123   67  16   54   89 
Ledezma*             4.98   3   7  34   8    85.0   90   47  11   34   52 
Baugh                5.37   3  11  23  23   124.0  143   74  19   41   55 
Knotts               5.43   4  11  38  23   141.0  153   85  23   59   89 
Larrison             5.43   2   6  25  25   121.0  137   73  12   59   44 
Urdaneta             5.43   1   5  47   0    58.0   64   35   6   29   28 
Burnside*            5.73   2   9  23  18    99.0  104   63  16   52   71