Toronto Blue Jays Preview

Looking back:

I thought it was a pretty reasonable plan. The offense had been good and virtually all of the regulars were brought back. The pitching staff featured one fine pitcher but by and large, wasn't getting the job done and wholesale changes were made.

I expected the Blue Jays to be on the fringe of the Wild Card race. Instead, they started badly and were never truly in the picture. So what went wrong? It's worth looking at the positional numbers here.

POPS+ is the same as OPS+ except that rather than comparing to the league average, the position average is used. 100 is average. Basically, Carlos Delgado and company were about 8% better than league average after park adjustments. Replacement level is something around 80.

ZR is how they ranked at the position in the majors. IE the Blue Jay shortstops were 20th in the majors in zone rating.

POS       BA     OBP     SLG     POPS+   ZR
1B	.272	.361	.491	  108     7
2B	.260	.339	.436	  109    15
3B	.241	.310	.360	   67    28
SS	.264	.317	.368	   80    20
LF	.279	.329	.398	   79     2
CF	.278	.337	.463	  101     1
RF	.277	.331	.384	   80	  4
DH	.233	.316	.377	   73	

Given what's happening in the NHL, there's a window of opportunity for the Blue Jays. I can't honestly say that they're poised to take advantage of it, but I think they could really draw with a contending team. Instead, this looks to be a team that will battle to stay around .500.

I'm pretty sure that the public perception will be something like, "they weren't very good last year and Delgado's gone." A marketing campaign of, "Yeah, Delgado's gone but we won't be playing six stiffs either!" just isn't likely to fly. And perception of team quality is a heck of a lot more important in explaining how a team draws than the actual talent.

I figure the Blue Jays were around 200 net runs away from contention (IE a team likely to win around 90 games). They could make this all up, but I can't say I find it at all likely.

Offensive overview:

I had expected a pretty fair offensive team last year -- and I don't think I was alone. Instead, the Blue Jays were (considering they play in a hitter's park) about 140 runs away from average and now they've lost their best offensive player.

Still, it's not going to be as bleak as that sounds. In fact, given reasonable luck with injuries, I'd expect the offense to score 90-100 more runs than last year. (Of course that still rates to leave them in the nothing-special range)

How? The Blue Jays featured replacement level or worse offense at 6 positions. (Catcher, shortstop, third base, left field, right field and DH). Practically by definition you can expect improvement.

Some of this was due to injuries, some of it due to players having unexpectedly bad years (Hinske and Phelps), but some of the damage was clearly self-inflicted. Things like regular use of Dave Berg in the outfield or Chris Gomez at first.

I try to avoid harsh second-guessing, but any manager who thinks it's a good idea to play Chris Gomez at first should be fired. (Gomez was second on the team in defensive innings at first and started 12 games there. He was playing pretty well -- particularly by his standards -- at the time, but no manager worth his title should confuse a hot spell with an ability level. If there's one thing Chris Gomez has established it's that he's not a good hitter by the standard of shortstop, never mind first base. )

Catcher: Gregg Zaun

Zaun was pretty good last year. Kevin Cash and company weren't. The mix was in fact surprisingly bad. Basically, the Jays got replacement-level offense from the position and just may have been average defensively.

What this means is than while Zaun is a pretty fair bet to slip back a bit (it's not like he was a mile over his head though), the Jays rate to get a bit more out of the position than they did in 2004. While I doubt that Greg Myers can handle a heavy load, he rates to be a capable fill-in and that's all he'll be asked to do. (If his bat has gone south -- always possible after a year off, particularly given his age -- he's gone)

In other words, while Myers is the backup, Guillermo Quiroz figures to be the guy who would step in if Zaun were to go down for an extended period of time (and let's face it, that has to be in the plans -- catchers get hurt)

That's not a bad thing. If he had to play every day, Quiroz would probably be at least adequate. Indeed, he may well be the best player in the organization at the position. However, he hasn't exactly mastered AAA so the long-term interests of the Blue Jays are probably best served by having him at AAA.

One issue that I see is that Zaun and Myers have essentially the same skill set -- and neither throws very well. When you've got two limited players covering a position, I think it helps a lot to have a different set of skills. Say what you will about Kevin Cash, he can throw. To be clear, I'm not advocating carrying a third catcher but it would be nice to have somebody who can throw in the late innings of close games though that's not high on the list of concerns right now.

I can't say I expect the position to be a whole lot better in 2005. A 10-run improvement offensively seems reasonable and it rates to come at the cost of a few extra stolen bases.

The only hope for serious improvement lies in Quiroz being given the job (possible but unlikely unless Zaun gets hurt) and making a serious step forward (again possible, but it's a mistake to project improvement. Young players are the best bet to improve, but as Clay Davenport pointed out years ago, we tend to overrate the frequency that young players improve. Generally speaking, it's only those who do improve who end up as regulars.) He's the catcher of the future and has a real chance to be a useful player. I just don't think the future is now.

First Base: Eric Hinske

Delgado had a poor year by his standards in 2004 and still was one of the strong parts of the team. Players at his ability level are always in short supply and the really handy thing about the top-flight players is that their disappointing seasons still help you.

Unfortunately, the Blue Jays faced a dilemma; if they offered him arbitration, there was every chance he'd take it and they could expect to end up paying him in the $15-16 million range which is more than he's objectively worth in all probability.

Even assuming that they could fit it into their budget (far from a given -- Riccardi was given a budget increase after Delgado had moved on) I'm not sure it makes sense to do so.

I have a lot of sympathy for the decision to let him walk even though I would have offered arbitration while trying to sign him to a deal in the general range of what the Marlins offered.

Anyhow, he's gone and Eric Hinske has roughly no chance of being an adequate replacement. Hinske's bat was inadequate for a third-baseman last year and while I expect him to rebound somewhat, I thought he was miles over his head in his rookie season and obviously nothing has happened to change my mind.

I do think Eric Crozier or Gabe Gross (Hillenbrand would play first in this case) have a chance to be about average and I don't expect the Blue Jays to stay with Hinske forever if he proves inadequate (though I do expect them to give him every chance to prove me wrong). As such, I'm mentally penciling the position in for something on the order of a .790 OPS even though I'm doubtful that Hinske (or Hinske and a random platoon partner) will give it to them.

By the way, I expect Hillenbrand and others to see significant time here, pushing others into the DH spot. I'm simply treating Hillenbrand as a full-time DH even though I know others will play there. It should all come out in the wash.

Overall, I expect a decline of 15 runs from last year (not, mind you, a 15-run decline from a healthy Delgado. Still you can see why they would be reluctant to pay big money to Delgado -- particularly since they're already on the hook for Hinske. Yeah I know, sunk costs. But having to eat contracts is not good for the career prospects of a GM.). It could be worse.

A full year of Hinske at 2004 numbers would cost them as much as 20 more runs. He was brutal and he doesn't seem to have injury as an excuse. (In my opinion it was a fluke, just as his rookie season. There's nothing in his track record to suggest that 2004 is an actual ability level)

Second Base: Orlando Hudson

Well he did beat the problem with big platoon splits, but I can't say this helped the Blue Jays. As is common with switch-hitters working on their weak side, the improvement came at the expense of slippage on the strong side.

Given that the Jays have Frank Menechino, Hudson is more valuable to them with his extreme splits. It's no hardship to platoon Hudson and Menechino. Menechino can play, even if the glove isn't what you might like.

Still, it seems silly to quibble about what was probably the strongest position on the team in 2004 and there's no reason to expect it to be anything other than a plus this year. Yes, Menechino was over his head last year, but Hudson really wasn't and he rates to get the bulk of the playing time.

Third Base: Corey Koskie

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the weakest position in the majors in 2004 was Toronto's third base. Offense was well below replacement level and the defense was bad.

There's simply no way that this will be the case in 2005 as long as Koskie is healthy and one of the interesting things about Toronto's team construction is that if he goes down, you can in effect replace him with a designated hitter, first-baseman or left fielder. Of course, you might argue that the Blue Jays need at least one more guy to cover those positions. Still, the fallback positions are better than most.

Overall, I'd expect a 35-run improvement at the position on offense. Koskie also upgrades the defense.

Shortstop: Russ Adams

The position was an open wound last year. Blue Jay shortstops combined to give replacement level offense and below average defense, the main culprit being Chris Woodward. Chris Gomez played better than I had expected.

Adams, however, was hardly overmatched in his trial last year. He won't be nearly that good playing full-time and I think ZiPS has him pegged nicely.

I'm really not sure who will back him up. I hope the only backup infielder they carry is Menechino. Sure, he's not what you want defensively, but how do you justify a roster spot for (say) John McDonald?

Menechino is adequate for any in-game situation and in a real emergency you could go with Catalanotto at second and Hudson at short. Of course that's for an in-game situation only.

The real problem with carrying a traditional backup infielder is that you're tempted to pretend they're real players. If you can believe it, Chris Gomez saw significant time at first last year. 115 defensive innings. The Jays are carrying a number of limited players -- guys who will hurt you if used outside of their role. A roster spot is a precious commodity with a team like this and should not be used lightly.

Overall, I'm only estimating a 5-run improvement offensively. But this is a position to be optimistic about in the long run. Adams is close to being a pretty good player. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he started to play well this year.

Why so little improvement projected? Because Adams and Menechino were pretty good last year even if Woodward wasn't.

Adams simply doesn't rate to be a good enough offensive player to create a lot of runs (this year that is -- as I said, I think in the long run he'll be pretty good) It's tough to create a lot of runs when you don't rate to slug .400.

Left Field: Frank Catalanotto/Reed Johnson An awful lot of people saw playing time here last year and the results were ugly. Reed Johnson saw more time here than anybody else, and his bat is simply not adequate against right-handed pitching.

Could be worse though; Johnson's an excellent defensive player (a good center fielder who plays mostly corner outfield because he plays on the same team as Vernon Wells) whose bat is adequate against left-handed pitching.

Dave Berg got about 1/6 of the playing time here last year and I'm sorry -- that's mailing it in.

As Don Malcolm will tell you, I might have been Dave Berg's biggest booster at one time, but you have to consider context. I thought he was an unusually good hitter for a backup infielder. I never thought he was an absolutely good hitter.

You can say the same thing of Catalanotto to an extent. He's a fine hitter by the standards of starting second-basemen, but nothing special when compared to left-fielders (or designated hitters -- it wouldn't surprise me to see him at DH, with Gabe Gross in the lineup).

To be clear, I can't see Catalanotto getting any time in the infield except possibly in an in-game emergency. He was adequate at best and he hasn't seen any time there in years.

Anyhow, it seems reasonable to project a 15-run improvement at the position offensively. It's not that Catalanotto is great, just that he's going to be getting playing time that went to Berg (and Gabe Gross was terrible in 2004 as well)

While I've got this as a Catalanotto/Johnson platoon I think it's far from clear how this will play out. I expect Johnson to play regularly against left-handed pitching. Hinske and Catalanotto are the only guys he can logically take playing time from, and he will play outfield if he plays.

I think they're likely to be better off with Catalanotto rather than Hinske in the lineup, but the GM has a certain emotional interest in Hinske given the general credit he got for having the courage to deal his closer for a minor leaguer. Well it was credit after Hinske played so well. Before that, he was slagged in quite a few places. I'm not at all sure if Riccardi would put direct pressure to play Hinske, but right now I believe that he wants Hinske given every chance to succeed.

While I may seem to be down on Johnson, in fact I think he's a good but limited player and something of a test of a manager. If you focus only on the positives (his glove, his speed and the fact that he's a good bunter) you end up using him in roles where he hurts you, as in starting as a corner outfielder against right-handed pitching. If you ever end up with a team where he's the best option in that role, somebody's failed in the construction of the team.

However, if you keep him around as a platoon player, pinch-runner and general defensive replacement there are few teams that he wouldn't be able to help. Even (or maybe especially) considering today's small number of bench players. It's handy to have a guy who's a legitimate center-fielder and who can start at corner outfield when he has the platoon advantage.

Center Field: Vernon Wells

I was on record as saying I thought 2003 was an actual ability level for Wells. To be perfectly honest however, he's never really had anything approaching that level of play. In other words, while most Blue Jay fans were surprised and disappointed by his 2004 it's probable that it represents his actual level of talent or something close to it. (And that I'd simply bought into the hype)

I'd put him on the short list of players on the team who could have a huge year though, and he's a pretty good player even at 2004 levels.

I've put the position down as a 15-run improvement, based on expecting Wells to play a tad better this year as well as expecting Reed Johnson to play less.

Right Field: Alexis Rios

I didn't think he was ready last year, but he was needed and was pressed into service. I don't know how this will affect him in the long run, but he has a chance of being an important player and I think it's generally a mistake to promote a player who hasn't mastered his current level (or to hold back a player who has)

The results weren't pretty, but he was clearly the best option in the organization by the time he was asked to play. His bat wasn't much better than replacement level but he showed good range and a good arm.

So where does this leave him? I don't expect him to be anything special this year, but I'd be far from surprised if he was significantly better. He's young, has obvious athletic gifts as well as some control of the strike zone. The upside could be huge but I just don't expect it this year.

I expect the position to be 10-15 runs better (again in part because I expect to see less of Reed Johnson against right-handed pitching -- he did start 41 games in right field last year)

Designated Hitter: Shea Hillenbrand

I think it was reasonable to expect Josh Phelps to hit last year. He didn't (with Toronto at any rate. In a platoon role in Cleveland he was OK) and there was no realistic backup plan. While a 79 game trial isn’t adequate, statistically speaking, at a certain point, it’s almost inevitable that you’ll have to do something. Gabe Gross and Eric Crozier were the obvious choices to replace Phelps, but they actually hit even worse than Phelps had.

The only guy who hit at DH last year was Catalanotto and a) he missed a bunch of time and b) if he's DHing then Reed Johnson's in the lineup and that's not a good thing much of the time.

Hillenbrand isn't a wonderful player, but he'll be a significant upgrade on what the Blue Jays got last year. 20+ runs seems likely, assuming he’s not moved. I think he's more valuable to other organizations (and given that his central skill is batting average, apt to be more highly regarded by other organizations than by the Blue Jays). I expect him to be moved, but I also expect that either Crozier or Gross will not be able to give them what Hillenbrand can, or something close.

Which begs the question: If I'm right, why did they pick him up in the first place.?

Well, if you feel the price is right and you have a place for the player if you don't end up moving him, I think it's silly to worry about how the player's value is packaged.

To take an extreme case, Tony Gwynn didn't have much power and his plate discipline wasn't all you might want but he's a classic example of how overrated is not the same thing as bad and why you judge a player by the sum of his parts and not the weakest area of his game. Hell of a player.

Now Hillenbrand isn't Gwynn -- he's not even on radar. But he's still good enough to cover up a significant weakness at a reasonable price.

Pitching overview:

Simply put, the Jays attempted to replace everybody who hadn't pitched well in 2003. Add that to Roy Halladay, and there was a potential for massive improvement. I thought it was a reasonable if ambitious plan.

Didn't work out.

Rotation:

Halladay and then Dear Lord 4 Days Of Rain didn't seem to be a viable plan, particular since they play home games in a dome, so Ted Lilly, Miguel Batista and Pat Hentgen were brought in.

As I'd sort of expected, Hentgen was bad and Batista was roughly league average. Lilly was better than I'd expected (I've always liked him, but not so much as an excellent pitcher but rather as somebody who can do the job and works fairly cheap because he's never impressed a radar gun)

Bottom line, starters in 2003 not named Halladay combined for 711 innings of 5.23 ERA. I expected a significant improvement.

Didn't happen. First of all, Hentgen did a lot more damage than I'd expected -- pitching both worse and more than I'd expected.

Second, they had to get more non-Halladay inning than in 2003 and the organization didn't have a lot of pitching depth. (Having said that, at the start of the season David Bush really wasn't in the picture and he pitched very well. I think he was a little over his head, but he still rates to help this year)

Starters other than Halladay combined for a 4.99 ERA in 799 innings and frankly, I don't see this as being a whole lot better in 2005. Oh, it's reasonable to hope that they'll pitch less and the front four choices can reasonably be expected to combine for something approaching a 4.60 ERA but we're talking pitchers and I don't see a lot of reasonable options when somebody goes down.

And then there's Halladay. The Blue Jays can hope for 32 pretty good starts. ZiPS projects a slight decline from the level he'd established from 2001 to 2003. It's a reasonable guess, though you just never know; he could be all the way back or hurt again. He hasn't been pushed insanely hard but only a handful of guys can handle the workload of a front-line starter year after year.

At any rate, If Halladay is healthy and pitches as well as ZiPS projects and they aren't forced to use anybody well down the depth chart, the starting pitching rates to be around 50 to 60 runs better than it was in 2004.

That strikes me as being very optimistic. A 30 run improvement is my best guess. Somebody's going to implode or get hurt and I don't see any obvious candidates for a breakout season.

Bullpen:

I was wrong. Though I hedged my bets, I thought it likely that the bullpen would be at least OK. ERA isn't a great way to evaluate relief pitching, but it's safe to say a lot has gone wrong when the staff ERA for relief pitchers is 5.02.

Though they were widely perceived as having failed, Terry Adams and Justin Speier pitched about as well as you could reasonably expect. Thing is, pretty much everybody else pitched a whole lot worse than I expected. Jason Frasor is the obvious exception and he was far from great (except of course on a relative scale)

This year? Well there are a lot more "mights" than "shoulds." Billy Koch might pitch well in a limited role. He might even be able to handle a major role. Kerry Lightenburg might bounce back -- he's been a good pitcher for a long time. Frasor might take a step forward and might hold the level he was at last year (he's a candidate to slip though). Speier should even out his platoon differential -- it's never been extreme and might hold the level he was at against right-handed hitters (I doubt it -- he'd be very valuable then).

Whoever they pick for the LOOGY role should be OK there and might be able to handle a bigger role. The odd thing about this staff is that Scott Schoeneweis is probably the leading candidate for loogy and is in the mix for the rotation should somebody go down. This suggests somebody who might be able to handle the role of relief pitcher who happens to be left-handed as opposed to the more limited role of trying to get the occasional lefty.

There's no anointed closer. I expect Speier to end up with the job and I expect him to be adequate if given the role.

There's depth here because there's always an adequate supply of guys who might be good. Guys like Vinnie Chulk (who was adequate last year and I don't think was over his head), and if one of the AAA starters ended up being a decent reliever I'd be totally unsurprised.

I'm really not sure where that leaves things. I think it’s doubtful that the bullpen will be a positive, though I do expect an improvement over last year. I think 20 runs is possible if optimistic.

Summing up:

While if everything breaks right the Blue Jays could improve their pitching by as much as 100 runs, that's a real long shot. I'd make the most likely scenario a 45 run improvement.

One thing I've noticed is a clear taste for finesse pitchers. Nibblers even. As a staff, they were 12th in strikeouts and 13th in walks. That's something that isn't likely to change in 2005 and doesn't bode well for the success of the staff.

I don't know if this is just the way things worked out or organizational philosophy. If the latter, it's somewhat surprising given that this is supposed to be an organization with sabremetric leanings.

Defensive Overview:

Last year the outfield defense was outstanding and the infield was below average. Kevin Cash did a good job controlling the running game and the other catchers were below average (while not causing tremendous damage)

Cash is gone. Expect the Blue Jays to be below-average in both stolen bases allowed and opponents stolen bases. Annoying but not the end of the world

The outfield defense rates to be outstanding. Catalanotto isn't a great defensive outfielder but at least he can run down some of his mistakes. You can do a heck of a lot worse. Everybody else in the mix is very good.

Koskie is a bug upgrade on Hinske. Adams looks to be OK if nothing special (sure he had a poor fielding percentage in his limited play last year. Not that fielding percentage tells you anything of note, but it tells you no more about his ability level than his good slugging last year)

How good second base is depends on how much Hudson plays. Hudson is a good defensive player. Menechino isn't. Delgado was always better than his rep, but I'd be surprised if the position isn't adequate this year.

Put it all together and I'd expect the Blue Jays to be a tad above-average defensively. Nothing special either way (in spite of the fine outfield defense)

Manager: John Gibbons

Gibbons has an important job. There are a number of talented young players and Gibbons has the task of turning talent into championship-caliber players.

He seems to have one important qualification: he doesn't seem to be afraid to use young players. Beyond that, I can't say I've got a good read on him but he does seem to have a sensible attitude, saying the right things about the whole Delgado situation. You'd think that teams would consider a basic grasp of PR a requirement for the job and he seems to have that part down.

Gibbons also didn't indulge in the really goofy lineup decisions. Well, he did use Menechino occasionally as a platoon DH and I'm not in love with the decision to lead Reed Johnson off against right-handed pitching. He focuses too much on Johnson's speed and not enough on the fact that he's not good at getting on base.

In general, I think a manager is very limited in the positive contribution he can make to a team. Sure it's a mistake to underestimate the value of very good coaching. Turn one player around and you've made a huge contribution. But that's really not all that common.

In general, if you do a good job of selecting the players, most things will even out in the end. However, if you're using limited players it's important to keep them out of situations where they're apt to fail.

This is a transition year -- a tough job for a manager because it requires him to focus on the long term while knowing he'll be graded on what happens in the short term. In a way, it's unfair to the manager. I expect this team to be good in a few years as they'll be adding a number of players who should be good regulars and I don't expect this manager to be there to enjoy it.

2005 ZiPS Projections

Name          ERA   W   L   G  GS     INN    H   ER   BB    K  HR 
Halladay     3.58  13  11  32  32   221.0  226   88   43  162  17 
Andrade      3.86   3   3  35   0    49.0   42   21   18   58   6 
Bush         3.98  10  11  31  31   181.0  187   80   41  141  20 
McGowan      4.35   7   7  23  23   124.0  125   60   51   95  10 
Frasor       4.57   3   4  58   0    63.0   60   32   37   55   4 
Gaudin       4.58   4   5  37  16   114.0  118   58   48   89  13 
Speier       4.63   3   4  66   0    68.0   72   35   23   54   9 
Ligtenberg   4.72   3   4  59   0    61.0   63   32   25   48   7 
League       4.72   4   7  35  17   120.0  125   63   56   80   9 
Duff         4.78   5   5  51   0    64.0   58   34   37   58   6 
Lilly*       4.79   8  12  30  29   173.0  178   92   70  148  23 
Carlson*     4.82   2   3  46   0    56.0   55   30   28   52   7 
Batista      4.85   7  13  37  30   193.0  212  104   81  111  17 
Song         4.90   5   8  21  21   112.0  112   61   56   87  14 
Towers       5.00   6  12  29  25   162.0  195   90   29   83  28 
Lundberg     5.07   5   8  45  10   119.0  136   67   37   67  18 
Whiteside    5.14   3   4  52   0    63.0   69   36   15   53  14 
Koch         5.18   4   6  64   0    66.0   64   38   39   64   8 
Walker       5.20   7   6  33  22   135.0  151   78   46   73  18 
Schoenewei   5.23   4   9  39  14   105.0  116   61   46   65  13 
Glynn        5.23   4   9  24  19   117.0  129   68   51   76  15 
Downs*       5.36   7  13  30  29   163.0  186   97   63   75  25 
Arnold       5.47   4   9  24  23   130.0  144   79   58   93  20 
Rosario      5.47   3   7  22  22    97.0  103   59   46   87  17 
Chulk        5.50   4   9  39  16   121.0  134   74   57   87  18 
Baker        5.63   5  10  26  24   128.0  149   80   44   87  25 
Miller       5.63   4  10  28  22   123.0  136   77   66   81  16 
Chacin*      5.77   5  12  33  22   128.0  144   82   64   86  20 
Smith        5.88   3   9  32  20   130.0  149   85   68   76  19 
Nannini      5.90   5  12  30  24   145.0  162   95   67  109  30 
Burnside*    6.92   2   9  26  17    95.0  107   73   65   71  21 

Name         P    AVG   OBP   SLG   G  AB   H 2B 3B HR   R RBI  BB   K SB CS 
Wells        cf  .296  .348  .511 153 632 187 40  3 30 101 100  49  85  7  2 
Rios         rf  .295  .343  .411 151 593 175 32  8  7  79  59  41 108 14  4 
Koskie*      3b  .270  .374  .476 128 460 124 31  2 20  72  71  69 111  8  7 
Hillenbrand  1b  .291  .332  .444 146 563 164 34  2 16  69  75  26  65  2  1 
Hinske*      3b  .253  .338  .420 149 557 141 33  3 18  77  71  71 112 12  5 
Hudson#      2b  .274  .344  .425 145 530 145 32  6 12  71  59  54  90  6  4 
Gross*       rf  .268  .364  .402 140 497 133 30  2 11  72  61  73 110  6  4 
Adams*       ss  .268  .332  .375 144 552 148 29  3  8  77  54  49  70  8  4 
Alfaro       3b  .298  .348  .455 125 446 133 29  1 13  60  61  32  65  5  4 
Crozier*     1b  .266  .352  .461 111 384 102 22  1 17  59  57  49 104  6  4 
Johnson      rf  .278  .332  .390 128 485 135 23  2  9  69  54  27  84  5  3 
Catalanotto* lf  .292  .352  .441 102 363 106 27  3  7  53  42  29  45  2  2 
Rich*        2b  .261  .325  .352 131 483 126 22  2  6  70  48  43  70  3  4 
Fagan        1b  .252  .354  .358 112 408 103 17  1  8  64  45  62  90  3  2 
Griffin*     lf  .239  .315  .402 118 423 101 22  1 15  57  58  44 111  1  1 
Hill         ss  .257  .330  .365 122 417 107 19  1  8  68  49  42  59  4  2 
Matos        3b  .271  .307  .379 122 435 118 24  1  7  51  49  19  45  4  3 
Hattig#      3b  .230  .309  .384 121 409  94 22  1 13  49  39  44 103  5  4 
Mottola      rf  .239  .290  .392 112 423 101 21  1 14  52  55  27  85  6  4 
Quiroz       c   .242  .315  .436 101 335  81 21  1 14  49  50  33  77  1  0 
Sequea#      2b  .258  .329  .357 104 361  93 17  2  5  59  34  36  68  8  7 
Menechino    2b  .241  .340  .366  90 303  73 13  2  7  43  33  43  62  1  3 
Zaun#        c   .254  .348  .373  95 279  71 18  0  5  34  30  37  49  0  2 
Myers*       c   .261  .330  .403  99 253  66 12  0  8  32  35  27  50  0  3 
Huckaby      c   .247  .284  .322  80 255  63 11  1  2  24  22  12  40  0  1 
McDonald     2b  .240  .277  .315  82 200  48 10  1  1  27  16   9  31  2  1