Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Comparing the Contenders

Where do the AL East contenders sit right now compared to each other? Let’s compare them by looking at how their current depth charts stack up. At each position (including starters one through five and three bullpen slots for closer, lefty/righty setup men and the rest) the three teams will be ranked according to the likely productivity of their current situation. We’ll assign points on a 3-2-1 scale for each team and total them up at the end.

Needless to say, this is such a basic level of analysis that I'm almost ashamed to call it that. Still, it will give us a sense of the talent level on hand and where each team's advantages and disadvantages lie.

For each team, I mostly used the CBS Sportsline depth chart, which is very good, to save me the trouble. Where there was a substitution I thought was obvious, I made it. I think the Sportsline depth charts are restricted to guys on the 40-man roster, which makes sense to me.

CATCHER

New York – Jorge Posada, Kelly Stinnett
Boston – Jason Varitek, Kelly Shoppach
Toronto – Gregg Zaun, Guillermo Quiroz

Red Sox 3, Yankees 2, Blue Jays 1

Jason Varitek is the class of a good group, but having a proven backup like Stinnett puts the Yankees ahead of the Jays. Posada and Zaun are essentially a wash, with Zaun’s better ability to block balls in the dirt balancing out a slight edge in power and errors the other way.

FIRST BASE

New York – Jason Giambi, Andy Phillips
Boston – Kevin Youkilis, Andy Marte (?)
Toronto – Lyle Overbay, Shea Hillenbrand

Yankees 3, Blue Jays 2, Red Sox 1

There was a time when Jason Giambi was extremely durable. Those days are done now. The rankings here basically come down to a single question: how many games can Jason Giambi play? If he plays 140, as he did last year, the category goes to the Yankees. If he plays 80, as he did two years ago, it goes to the Jays. I’d bet he plays more than 110, and that means the Yanks have it.

SECOND BASE

New York – Robinson Cano, Felix Escalona
Boston – Mark Loretta, Tony Graffanino
Toronto – Aaron Hill, John McDonald

Red Sox 3, Yankees 2, Blue Jays 1

Loretta wins this group for the Red Sox, with Cano edging out Hill based on what he showed last year. Again, with a very talented player here the Jays have the opportunity to move up, but aren’t likely to get the same production as a Mark Loretta this year.

SHORTSTOP

New York – Derek Jeter, Felix Escalona
Boston – Alex Cora, Dustin Pedroia
Toronto – Russ Adams, Aaron Hill

Yankees 3, Blue Jays 2, Red Sox 1

Cora hasn’t been a regular at shortstop for five years, is turning 30 and isn’t as good a hitter as Russ Adams; the Red Sox have a shot at significantly outperforming the Jays’ shortstop and also a shot at making the shortstop position their Achilles heel. Derek Jeter is the class of this group by a country mile.

THIRD BASE

New York – Alex Rodriguez
Boston – Mike Lowell, Kevin Youkilis
Toronto – Corey Koskie, Shea Hillenbrand

Yankees 3, Blue Jays 2, Red Sox 1

Koskie and Hillenbrand make a nice little lefty/righty combo. Lowell fell further than Koskie last year; before that, the two were essentially a wash as fine hitters and fielders without either having a significant edge. The further fall puts the Sox a notch behind, combined with the nifty platoon potential of the Toronto third sackers. A-Rod, of course, is the best player in the league. As with Jeter and Cano, though, the Yankees have essentially nothing behind him, and if he gets hurt, are in rough shape.

LEFT FIELD

New York – Hideki Matsui, Bubba Crosby
Boston – Manny Ramirez
Toronto – Frank Catalanotto, Reed Johnson

Red Sox 3, Yankees 2, Blue Jays 1

Cat and Sparky are a nice platoon combination, but that’s it. Manny, being Manny, has the advantage over Matsui. Again, the Yankees must beware injuries. Oh, and Manny is perhaps headed out of Boston, but unless they get an entire starting outfield for him (which they might do, if they ate his entire contract, but unlikely otherwise) their outfield rankings won’t change for the better.

CENTER FIELD

New York – Johnny Damon, Bubba Crosby
Boston – Adam Stern, Bullpen Catcher
Toronto – Vernon Wells, Alex Rios

Blue Jays 3, Yankees 2, Red Sox 1

Adam Stern’s a Canadian boy, which is why the Red Sox avoid getting “Red Sox 0” here. And yes, I prefer Vernon to Damon, even though his offense is usually maybe ten runs worse. I think he’s probably more than ten runs better on defense; half of that with the throwing arm and also Damon tends to drop a few balls a year, whereas Vernon wouldn’t bobble the CN Tower if you dropped it on him point first. He also gets to a few more balls. Also, Vernon’s younger than Damon and heading into his age-27 season. I think it’s a clear choice. Toronto’s also got a better backup situation (Rios and Johnson) than the Yanks, a phenomenon that is noticeable throughout these comparisons.

RIGHT FIELD

New York – Gary Sheffield, Bubba Crosby
Boston – Trot Nixon, Brandon Moss
Toronto – Alex Rios, Reed Johnson

Yankees 3, Blue Jays 2, Red Sox 1

Nixon’s missed 60 games a year on average the last three seasons, couldn’t hit a lefty if you gave him a tennis racket, and his backup is some hitherto undiscovered species of plant life. Seriously, Moss is 23 and hit .268/.337/.441 in AA last year, so his Toronto equivalent is somebody like Ron Davenport. Does that make Boston’s situation worse than Toronto’s? I have to think it does, especially with Nixon having had knee surgery in October. He’s vaguely expected to be ready for spring, but given his history the knee may give problems.

DESIGNATED HITTER

New York - Bernie Williams
Boston – David Ortiz
Toronto – Troy Glaus

Red Sox 3, Blue Jays 2, Yankees 1

Toronto could have signed Jesus Christ to DH (can’t play in the field, bad knees you know) and they’d still have the second-best guy in the division.

Because the bench players are included in the positional marks, I won’t do a separate bench score. The Blue Jays have easily the best pinch-hitting options, followed by the Red Sox with the Yankees bringing up the rear. Totalling the figures for the lineup gives you Boston 17, Toronto 16, and New York in the lead with 21. It’s close as we head out to the mound.

FIRST STARTER

New York – Randy Johnson
Boston – Curt Schilling
Toronto – Roy Halladay

Blue Jays 3, Yankees 2, Red Sox 1

I hope to god there’s no debate about this.

SECOND STARTER

New York – Mike Mussina
Boston – Josh Beckett
Toronto – AJ Burnett

Blue Jays 3, Red Sox 2, Yankees 1

Mussina has clearly slipped enough (despite the Yankees’ crappy defence behind him) in the last two years to tail the two former Marlins. Beckett and Burnett have both been about the same over the last two seasons; thrown similar numbers of starts and innings and Burnett’s been a hair more effective but there’s nothing between them. Beckett’s shoulder injury (he’s expected to be ready, though) and Burnett going back to the pitching coach he’s devoted to and with whom he had his greatest success gives AJ the nod over Josh by the narrowest of margins.

THIRD STARTER

New York – Carl Pavano
Boston – Matt Clement
Toronto – Gustavo Chacin

Red Sox 3, Blue Jays 2, Yankees 1

Pavano is expected to be ready for spring, but shoulders are tricky. Anyway, it’s not relevant… his ERA+ numbers the last five years are 73, 79, 94, 137, and 93. Which one looks like the fluke to you? Chacin also has a much better career ERA+ than Clement, but in this case I’ll go with the veteran and the strikeouts.

FOURTH STARTER

New York – Shawn Chacon
Boston – David Wells
Toronto – Ted Lilly

Yankees 3, Blue Jays 2, Red Sox 1

At this stage of his career, Wells is a consistently average starter who hits that consistent average through extreme methods. His results the last three seasons are indistinguishable from Lilly’s, except he’s pitched more. Lilly being thirteen years younger, is that an advantage? He’s actually less likely to implode completely than Wells, despite some rocky moments last season, since he can still strike guys out. I think the Yankees maybe have the best guy of the lot here in Chacon, who finally made his Escape From Coors Field and it really looked good on him. Chacon can pitch. As for Lilly and Wells, I honestly can’t pick between them, but Lilly offers the better “upside” and so for that reason I guess I’ll go with him. If you disagree, give a half point to Boston and take a half point from Toronto. But I have to choose.

FIFTH STARTER

New York – Chien-Ming Wang
Boston – Tim Wakefield
Toronto – Josh Towers

Red Sox 3, Blue Jays 2, Yankees 1

If Wakefield and Towers really are the fifth starters on these teams, they surely must be among the three or four best fifth starters in baseball right now. Wakefield gets the definite edge for the innings he can consume and his superb year-to-year (if not game-to-game) consistency.

Rotation totals are Toronto 12, New York 8, Boston 10, making the overall numbers 29-28-27 New York-Toronto-Boston as we head for the pen.

CLOSER

New York – Mariano Rivera
Boston – Keith Foulke
Toronto – BJ Ryan

Yankees 3, Blue Jays 2, Red Sox 1

Foulke’s knee problem doesn’t hurt him here, as he’s third-best anyway. Third best in this company is no shame at all.

SETUP MEN

New York – Kyle Farnsworth (righty), Mike Myers (lefty)
Boston – Mike Timlin (righty), Lenny DiNardo (lefty)
Toronto – Justin Speier (righty), Scott Schoeneweis (lefty)

Blue Jays 3, Yankees 2, Red Sox 1

Boston are hurt a bit at looking at the setup men from each side, because they don’t really have a true lefty setup man. So these ratings may be a bit unfair to them, but then they get to add their extra righthanders to the next group. Toronto have the best balance here, the Yankees have the best guy last year in Farnsworth. But Myers isn’t a true setup man, more of a lefty specialist. It’s hard to put a guy who throws 40 innings a year in the same league as a guy who will throw 60. We could substitute Ron Villone for Myers, but Villone’s not as good as Schoeneweis either. It’s a tough call, but I think the Toronto guys are a better bet because of Farnsworth’s extreme inconsistency.

THE REST

New York – Ron Villone, Tanyon Sturtze, Aaron Small, Scott Proctor
Boston – Rudy Seanez, Guillermo Mota, Craig Hansen, Manny Delcarmen
Toronto – Jason Frasor, Pete Walker, Brandon League, Scott Downs

Red Sox 3, Yankees 2, Blue Jays 1

Boston are the class of this mix. Rating the Blue Jays over the Yankees here would require a leap of faith, namely that Downs showed his true colours last season and that his fine performance wasn’t a fluke, and that Aaron Small didn’t show his true colours last season and that his fine performance was a fluke. One of those is likely true, but are both?

The bullpens rate out at Yankees 7, Blue Jays 6, Red Sox 5.

So who’s got the best team right now? Totalling up the numbers, we get

Yankees 36
Blue Jays 34
Red Sox 32

And note that before the Johnny Damon signing, it would have been 35-34-33, which is about as close as you can get. Of course, the offseason’s not done yet; the Red Sox are apparently looking to dump Manny Ramirez and the Yankees still need to cut about $35-45 million in payroll to get to their break-even point (if they are interested in doing that, as they claim to be). But as of right now, if you largely ignored the possibility of injuries the Yankees seem to have a slight edge in talent, with the Jays breathing right down their necks and likewise with Boston.

It's generally assumed that there is a wide gap in talent between New York and Boston on one hand, and the Jays on the other. I hope that this very simple analysis shows everyone that it's just not so.

I can’t wait for April.

Posted by Craig B on Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:40 AM EST.

Comparing the Contenders | 88 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Ron - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:05 AM EST (#137990) #

- In terms of the Jays 3B, JP said Glaus was the guy.
- I still think there's a chance Jaret Wright will be in the rotation.
- It's highly unlikely you'll see League in the pen over somebody like Vinnie Chulk.

With the Red Sox still expected to make a few major moves (perhaps a Manny trade, figuring out who's going to play SS and C) it's really early to see how the 3 teams stack up.

But if I had a gun pointed to my head and asked to rank the order of finish I would go with:

1. Yanks
2. Red Sox
3. Jays

The Yanks really improved their bullpen and upgraded the offence. The Red Sox pitching staff looks extremely strong right now. I'm expecting a big season from Paplebon.

What's the over/under for the amount of days spent on the DL for Schilling/Beckett/Doc/AJ?

Geoff - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:06 AM EST (#137991) #

Looks like the Jays could use a backup catcher named Kelly to keep up with these big spenders. I wonder what Gruber's doing these days?

I still wonder if there's something the matter with Loretta.

I find it interesting that Glaus is not listed at 3B on your list. Are the Jays seriously planning to put Glaus in the field? Enough chatter about Koskie being brittle. 140 games from him at 3B is good enough for this team and he should be given the opportunity to do that. It's what he was paid to do.

I dunno about that the 3-5 starter battles and the bullpen ratings outside of the closer. Not so clear-cut.

Plus, I'd detract from your argument the merits of your valuation system with 3,2,1 points up for grabs with no ties.

But we can surely unanimously agree on your last point: I can’t wait for April.

Craig B - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:15 AM EST (#137992) #

Yeah, it's early, this is just a snapshot.

Boston may yet do something like sign Rich Aurilia or Alex Gonzalez for short, or sign Hidalgo or Preston Wilson for center. If they trade Manny, it will likely mean a lesser player coming back and creates another hole. At any rate, there's little they can do at this point (barring a major trade of pitching for hitting, maybe Arroyo and/or Papelbon) that could significantly strengthen their lineup. The Yankees destroyed them by signing Damon... (George does it again) because there is absolutely no one out there who can play a good enough centerfield to help Manny out in left.

And forget the Sox/Jays pitchers... the Yankees were incredibly healthy last year, as I've pointed out at least once. What are the odds of that happening again at the 161st Street Old Folks' Home?

Craig B - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:17 AM EST (#137993) #

Looking back, also, I think I may have erred in putting the Jays ahead of the Sox in right. Trot's got his problems, but he is a heck of a hitter, which Rios is not, and Trot plays a good right field.

rocococo - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:35 AM EST (#137995) #

great analysis.............just what happened to vinnie chulk? i think if he is included instead of walker this puts our bullpen ahead of the yankeys

Geoff - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:42 AM EST (#137996) #

Ha..just noticed that Hinske has been traded off your team. Was he traded for Craig Wilson like I've been hoping?

And would you consider adding a rating for depth in the minors? Given injuries, that could be huuuuuge.

And I agree that I'd like to see the Bronx Baby Boomers given a lot of injuries. And that this article may be too premature, but what are we coming here for other than debate fodder?

3RunHomer - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 08:21 AM EST (#138002) #

The Orioles and Devil Fishees are highly insulted by this post.

BrockLanders - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 09:33 AM EST (#138004) #

The Red Sox appear to be a franchise in transition. Until JP accelerated his plan, the blue jays were floating in a similar craft. The red sox will probably re-emerge as a major threat in either 2007 or 2008. That should allow their younger players time to develop.

NDG - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 09:43 AM EST (#138006) #

I gotta agree with a couple sentiments above ..

Nixon (even 100 games of) definately better than Rios in right,

and adding Chulk (why is he missing?) to the rest makes the Jays bullpen better than the Yanks.

There might be other little quibbles, but for this level of analysis, it's fine except for the two I've listed above.

BrockLanders - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 09:56 AM EST (#138007) #

Ok. Freeing our selves from the shackles of subjectivity??
Who's the better prospect at the moment, Dustin McGowan or Jon Lester??? I think its closer than the average Baseball America reader would suggest.

Craig B - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 10:17 AM EST (#138009) #

OK, I'll grant that NDG is right on both counts, even though I still really think that if Boston can only get 100 games of platoon Nixon, they're in trouble because they have absolutely no one right now behind him. That would make the teams 35-34-33 instead of 36-34-32. At any rate, it's still a razor-thin margin.

Chulk, by the way, was left off due to an oversight and nothing more.

Marc Hulet - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 10:32 AM EST (#138011) #

I think it's clear that the Yanks have the most talent but given their ages, most of their players should be declining this year or next... Mussina, Johnson, Sheffield, Rivera, etc. should all have their best days behind them. That is really Toronto's only hope to win the division.

If Ramirez and Wells are traded out of Boston, as they have demanded, the Red Sox should be vulnerable.

Craig B - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 10:43 AM EST (#138012) #

So what's wrong with the analysis above then, Marc?

Marc Hulet - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 11:03 AM EST (#138013) #

Nothing at all.

The 12 mostly likely 2006 Yankees' pitchers have an average age of 33.3. Yikes.

Glevin - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 11:25 AM EST (#138014) #

I love these excercises, but there is a fundemental problem with them. For example, at second starter, the list is Blue Jays and Burnett (3points), Beckett (2 points), and Mussina (1 point) and at 3B the list is Arod (3 points), Koskie (2 points), and Lowell (1 point). Now, the difference between Arod and either Koskie or Lowell is enormous. Arod is one of the very best players in baseball. The difference between Burnett and Beckett or even Mussina is non-existant. (In fact, outside a Jays board, I doubt you'd find Burnett listed first very often.) So for this, there is the same number of points allocated between the difference of Arod to Koskie and Josh Towers to Tim Wakefield which is not near comprable in real life. Which grouping would you rather have?
Arod, Manny, Lowell, Matsui, Mussina, Randy Johnson, and Trot Nixon or; Overbay, Russ Adams, Burnett, Towers, Spier and Schowenweiss, and Chacin. The first seven players have thirteen points total and the second six have thirteen. The first grouping is a core to a WS team. The second is the core of a sub-.500 team. There were also three seperate bullpen catagories which makes bullpen far too important. If you want to accurately compare the teams, you have to have a larger scale of which to do this. Say, even out of 10. It then becomes something like Arod 10, Koskie 5, Lowell 5 and Beckett 7, Burnett 7, Mussina 6 or whatever for the core players while the bench and bullpen get overall marks.

NDG - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 11:56 AM EST (#138015) #

Glevin, no matter what kind of analysis you do, someone will say there is something missing. Craig pointed out it was a very basic analysis, and for that, what he has done is quite good. You can spend a lot of time doing a detailed analysis, but as soon as the Jays and Sox make their next moves it'll be for naught.

BTW Craig, when I asked about Chulk, it was only a question, not derogatory at all. Written words always seem to come out harsher than what I actually had in mind.

Jim - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 11:58 AM EST (#138017) #

Of course, it's not scientific and there are problems with the point structure. I personally think it gets to a reasonable conclusion so it's not really worth spending a lot of time refining it. I think the Yanks have a bit of an edge right now - but the pitching could blow up - and the Jays are second with the Red Sox behind them at this moment.

Craig B - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:21 PM EST (#138020) #

I didn't take it harshly, NDG.

Obviously, as comments above indicate and as I agree, the 3-2-1 system is simplistic. This is a quick exercise designed to show that the Blue Jays don't have a substantial talent gap.

Michael - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:21 PM EST (#138021) #

The problem with this kind of analysis (aside from the obvious pro-Jays of a few positions like RF and 3B and SP2 and SP3) is it doesn't account for how much better some of the players are. Where we have better players it is largely just slightly better (except SP1). Where the others have better players they are guys like Ramirez (don't expect him to be traded, he isn't going anywhere), Nixon, Varitek, Giambi, Arod, Jeter, etc. Even a guy like Loretta is a better hitter than any Jay bar Glaus.

The Jays have above average hitting and above average pitching and that is good for a 85-90 win season. But BOTH the Red Sox and Yankees are better than that, on average.

Mylegacy - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:40 PM EST (#138024) #

I don't like the 1-2-3. It should be 10-9-8-7-etc. With the FIRST player anywhere, i.e. Rodriguez would be a 10, Glaus an 8 and Lowell a 4. HOWEVER, they should also be ranked on defense with Lowell 8 Rodriguez 6 and Glaus 6.

AND then the 3-4-5 Hitters should be given numbers x 1.5 for their offensive production.

AND the ACEs should get their number x 4, the second starters x 3 and the third starters x 2.

The Closers should also get x 3; the two key setup guys get x 2.

When you do all this you get a better, but still not right, assessment.

When ALL the moves are complete this winter I'll do up a full AL East, AS I SEE IT. And you guys can RIP IT TO SHREDS!

Craig B - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:58 PM EST (#138025) #

Anybody else feel the need to repeat the blindingly obvious? Anyone? Bueller?

Jevant - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:04 PM EST (#138027) #

Regardless of how much people have "ripped this to shreds", it's very entertaining and a most enjoyable read.

Thanks Craig.

Wildrose - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:11 PM EST (#138028) #

I think it's incumbent on those who critique Craig's methods to get off their lazy butts and present a more in -depth study.

Craig B - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:28 PM EST (#138030) #

Well anyway, this is more of a little diversion than serious analysis, so I certainly don't mind the criticism. I just wanted to have a little fun on a Tuesday night, and confirm a hunch I had.

Ducey - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 01:39 PM EST (#138031) #

Here are some rumours from Baltimore:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-burnitz27,1,7596594.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

They include that the Orange Birds are looking at signing Burnitz (age 37) for 2 years @ $6 million per. Apparently, they have the same affinity for aged outfielders the Jays have for 3 baseman. Also the Redsox are rumoured to have offered Manny and Clement for Miggy. Wow, would that shake things up in the AL East!

As far as the Jays infielders go, I like holding onto Koskie and Hillenbrand and dumping Hinske. Shea and Koskie could be a nice DH platoon able to spell Overbay and Glaus in the field and give them a "day off" at DH. It would be nice to have some injury insurance and a good bat on the bench. Against many righthanded starters they Jays would have a bench of MacDonald, Shea, Reed, GQ and if they play JFG, Rios. Against lefty starters they would have Cat, Koskie, Zaun, MacDonald (sometimes Adams), and JFG. This would allow to Jays to have better matchups, limit MacDonald's ABs, and PH for Adams, Hill or Rios. Maybe the Jays would do better in those one run games.

Glevin - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 02:44 PM EST (#138037) #

I did find the original analysis entertaining, and as soomeone previously wrote, every analysis like this will be flawed, but here's my own.

C
Varitek-8
Posada-6
Zaun-4

1B
Giambi-8
Overbay-5
Youklis-3

2B
Cano-7
Loretta-7
Hill-4

3B
ARod-10
Glaus-7
Lowell-5

SS
Jeter-9
Adams-5
Boston-2

LF
Manny-10
Matsui-8
Cat/Reed-5

CF
Wells-8
Damon-7
Boston-3

RF
Sheffield-9
Nixon-5
Rios/Reed-4

DH
Ortiz-10
Hillenbrand-6
Bernie-4

Ace
Halladay-10
Johnson-7
Schilling-6???

2nd
Beckett-7
Burnett-7
Mussina-6

3rd
Clement-7
Pavano-5
Cachin-5

4th+5th starters
Chacon and Wang-8
Wakefield+Arroyo-8
Lilly+Towers-7

Bullpen
Boston-8
Yankees-7
Jays-7

So, the unoffical total is...

Boston-89
Toronto-84
New York-102

Which not surprisingly reflects my opinion of the division. The Yankees seem to be way ahead with Boston not much ahead of Toronto. I still expect Boston to get a couple of guys (like Jeremy Reed and Julio Lugo) and trading Manny is still a possibility. The Yankees are probably mostly set and the Jays will have to make some moves because of the logjam at 3B/1B/DH. Glaus would get an 8 at DH, bu his defense is by all accounts atrocious at 3B.

Michael - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 02:52 PM EST (#138039) #

I think it's incumbent on those who critique Craig's methods to get off their lazy butts and present a more in -depth study.
I've done that on the other threads where I show the ERA+ of the Jays rotation (all very slightly above average, except, of course for Halladay) when I showed how osing Batista really hurts.
And I did OPS+ of Red Sox starters versus Jays starters and it is clear the Red Sox have a MUCH better offense than the Jays. The Jays project to very slightly above average offense and moderately above average pitching.
I just wanted to have a little fun on a Tuesday night, and confirm a hunch I had.
Analysis to confirm a hunch is always dangerous. The best part of Craig's analysis is listing position by position to start the discusion. If the hunch were "the Jays of 2006 and better than the Jays of 2005" then I'd agree. If the hunch were "the Jays of 2006 are as good as either the Red Sox of 2006 or the Yankees of 2006" I'd disagree.

Wildrose - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 03:05 PM EST (#138041) #

Michael, you need to factor in age related regression with individuals like Batista, and ERA plus, does a poor job with players who have large platoon splits like the Greek God of Walks and Trot Nixon.

My Legacy, apologies as I did not see you intend to do a more complete version later.

subculture - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 03:23 PM EST (#138045) #

My own version... taking into account backups and defense at the positions..

C
Varitek-8
Posada-6
Zaun-6

1B
Giambi-7 (weak D)
Overbay-7 (strong D)
Youklis-4

2B
Cano-7
Loretta-7
Hill-6 (I'm optimistic)

3B
ARod-10
Glaus-8 (capable backup in Koskie/Hillen)
Lowell-5

SS
Jeter-9
Adams-6
Boston-4 (they'll sign somebody)

LF
Manny- 9 (weak D, team distraction)
Matsui-8
Cat/Reed-7 (strong platoon and D)

CF
Wells-8
Damon-8
Boston-4 (again, they'll sign someone)

RF
Sheffield-7 (aging and off the roids)
Nixon-6
Rios/Reed-6 (hoping JFG gets at-bats here)

DH
Ortiz-10
Hillenbrand-7
Bernie-5

Ace
Halladay-10
Johnson-8
Schilling-7

2nd
Beckett-7
Burnett-7
Mussina-7

3rd
Clement-7
Pavano-6
Chacin-6 (was best of the 3 last year I think)

4th+5th starters
Chacon and Wang-6 (haven't proven anything)
Wakefield+Arroyo-8
Lilly+Towers-7 (could be much higher)

Bullpen
Boston-8
Yankees-8 (Rivera compensates for stiffs)
Jays-9 (best balanced with great closer)

Bench out of 5
Yankees-3 (same OLD guys)
Boston-2.5 (who?)
Jays-4 (maybe too MUCH depth)

Coaching out of 5
Yankees-4
Boston-4
Jays-3 (less experience)

So, my unofficial total is...

Boston-100.5
Toronto-107
New York-109

Hmmmnn, did I do the math right? If so, and of course this too is a basic analysis, but I think all 3 are close enough where injuries and luck might be the deciding factor. Team depth

Jim - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 04:35 PM EST (#138052) #

Not that I want to extend the debate much longer - but it's hard to take seriously when you get to:

Giambi-7 (weak D)
Overbay-7 (strong D)

Nick - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 04:39 PM EST (#138053) #

Anybody else feel the need to repeat the blindingly obvious? Anyone? Bueller?

I love it.

Spifficus - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 06:04 PM EST (#138057) #

Not that I want to extend the debate much longer - but it's hard to take seriously when you get to:

Giambi-7 (weak D)
Overbay-7 (strong D)

I had to admit, my curiosity was peaked as well by this assessment. After checking each players' DT Card on Baseball Prospectus, however, it doesn't look rediculous... whether one agrees or not is a separate question, but I'd say it's not rediculous. DT says that Giambi's 2005 was worth 58 batting runs above replacement, and -4 fielding runs 'above' replacement (in 78 games at 1b). His WARP1 was 5.9. Overbay, on the other hand, was credited with 33 batting runs above replacement, and 24 more for his work at 1b. His WARP1 was 6.4. Whether anyone thinks that this will repeat itself for 2006 is open for debate (though given ages, I'd say that it swings to Overbay's favor, not Giambi's). Again, though, after looking at some numbers, their even ranking isn't as easy to dismiss.

Mike Green - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 07:06 PM EST (#138058) #

I'd have Beckett way ahead of Burnett based on their career numbers and the fact that he's 3 years younger and hasn't underwent surgery. I'd also rather have Pedroia starting at short than Russ Adams; I think they'll hit about the same, but Pedroia's defence will be much better. Finally, I'd rather Lowell/Marte at third than Koskie/Hillenbrand.

Arms Longfellow - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 07:10 PM EST (#138062) #

I was just about to say that I'd rather have Beckett than Burnett by far. They are close though. I used to refer to them as the "Florida twins" because not only do they have similar numbers, they practically look the same too.

HollywoodHartman - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 07:52 PM EST (#138063) #

OT:

Just wondering if there has been any news on Preston Wilson recently. I believe if we shed some salary he would be a very good option for RF...

Glevin - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 10:09 PM EST (#138066) #

This is where stats go wrong. There is no way. NONE that Lyle Overbay last year was as valuable as Jason Giambi. Giambi had an OPS+ of 156 and Overbay 113 and yes, I know defense matters, but to make up for that difference at 1B, Overbay would have to be superman. I have always found defensive statistics problimatic in general (Does anyone on this board or who ever watched him play, think Roberto Alomar was a bad 2Bman?). The DT card thing is idiotic. I mean, any stats that has Lyle Overbay being MORE valuable according to WARP over the last two years than Manny Ramirez, Paul Konerko, Carlos Delgado, and I am sure many more great players is not flawed, it's useless.

VBF - Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 10:20 PM EST (#138067) #

HH, I wouldn't sacrifice the long-term possibilities of Rios for short-term gains of Preston Wilson (who's career numbers are amplified by Coors). He's going to be 32 in July and I'd rather give Rios a shot in a low pressure spot in the lineup and see what he can make of it. The rewards could be huge and inexpensive.

Now, if we could get a relatively young and dangerous outfielder like Craig Wilson, who is a long-term solution, I'd be all for that. He's still a Wilson :)

Geoff - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:03 AM EST (#138071) #

I don't see why Bernie is always pencilled in as the DH on these cards.

I expect Giambi will be the primary DH and some other guy will be brought in for 1B duty. Have I got the likelihood of that wrong?

Spifficus - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:16 AM EST (#138072) #

Actually, all Overbay had to do to draw even with Giambi on the DT card was to be significantly better than Giambi around the bag, and to play 12% more games.

Again, I'm not saying he is or isn't. Moreso that it just isn't as rediculous as it first sounds.

Mylegacy - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:53 AM EST (#138074) #

Looking at the opposition I can see we'll need every ounce of offense we can muster,so;

Platoons:

LF Hinske(L)/ Johnson(R)
RF Cat (L)/ Rios (R)
DH Koskie (L)/ Hilly (R)

For SURE Hinske can't play right, SO Cat gets to be stretched there.

Would this batting lineup help and or would the defense be too too weak????

VS LHP

Adams (L)
Johnson (R)
Wells (R)
Glaus (R)
Shea (R)
Overbay (L)
Zaun (R)
Hill (R)
Rios (R)

VS RHP

Adams (L)
Cat (L)
Wells (R)
Glaus (R)
Overbay (L)
Koskie (L)
Hinske (L)
Zaun (L)
Hill (R)

VBF - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:07 AM EST (#138076) #

I expect Giambi will be the primary DH and some other guy will be brought in for 1B duty. Have I got the likelihood of that wrong?

Brian Cashman, meet Eric Hinske.

Geoff - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 03:05 AM EST (#138081) #

Ha!

I remember reading that article. Hmmm, yes, I wonder if Cashman would realize that the A-rod acquisition should really have been Eric Hinske? All he needs to do is trade A-rod for Hinske and he'll get far out of his silly luxury tax spending and the Jays will have that super-utility player and righty power bat that they need. In the world according to Jay Mohr... we need more Jay friends.

Phil - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:29 AM EST (#138083) #

Not much to add, but just wanted to say thanks to Craig B for the rundown. Always enjoy these kind of position-by-position rundowns, irregardless of the statistical rigor of the final numbers. Good reminder of how potent the Sox/Yankee lineups still are. Would love to see something similar for Baltimore/TB?

Jim - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 10:39 AM EST (#138104) #

'Overbay, on the other hand, was credited with 33 batting runs above replacement, and 24 more for his work at 1b.'

So then according to BP, Overbay is 3 WINS better then Giambi based on his defense at first base. I find that hard to believe.

Spifficus - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 11:40 AM EST (#138111) #

It's not really significant whether the difference is 3 wins, or two, or whatever. A lot of numbers seem to be indicating that the difference between the two is significant. Observation doesn't argue with this assessment (I feel confident without ever having seeen Overbay in the field, so that will tell you what I think of Giambi's defence :).

So if you were pressed to put a number on the difference between a replacement-level (or less) first baseman and one of the best in the league, what value would you put on it? Nothing? 5 runs? 10 runs? 15? 20? More than 20?

But really, it's not important to me as to which was more valuable in 2005 - that's already happened. The bigger question is whether or not it's rediculous to say that a 35 year old Giambi will perform at about the same level as a 29 year old Overbay. Put me under Decidedly Un-Rediculous.

Jim - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:01 PM EST (#138113) #

'It's not really significant whether the difference is 3 wins, or two, or whatever. A lot of numbers seem to be indicating that the difference between the two is significant. Observation doesn't argue with this assessment (I feel confident without ever having seeen Overbay in the field, so that will tell you what I think of Giambi's defence :).'

Actually it does. I can pretty safely measure the difference between their offensive contributions. You can't call them equal unless Overbay's glove makes up the entire difference between their bats - which BP had at about 3 wins last year. I personally think the gap between their bats is larger then that and that there is no way that Overbay's (or any first baseman's) glove is 3 marginal wins better then Giambi's.

Spifficus - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:18 PM EST (#138115) #

My entire point, though, is that it's not so rediculous. Rediculous implies that it's a self-evident fact that this conversation shouldn't take place. Consider:

a) The difference in their defence is significant (whether 10, 20, or 30 runs, I personally don't care too too much)

b) Overbay played 12% more than Giambi last year.

c) Giambi will be 35, and Overbay 29 in 2006.

Add it all up, and the fact that Overbay's bat isn't chop liver, and it's pretty reasonable to say that Overbay could be on par with Giambi in '06.

Glevin - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 12:59 PM EST (#138123) #

"Add it all up, and the fact that Overbay's bat isn't chop liver, and it's pretty reasonable to say that Overbay could be on par with Giambi in '06."

Sure, he could be, but considering that Giambi has had an OPS+ of over 148, 6 of the last 7 years and Overbay at 29 years old has a career OPS+ of 114, it doesn't seem all that likely. This is along the lines of "If A.J. Burnett starts pitching like he can, if Aaron Hill steps it up offensively, if Ted Lilly rebounds, etc..." If things go perfectly for the Jays, yes they will win, but in general, more things go wrong than go as you might hope, and to win, you need to be able to win even when many things go poorly. (Yankees pitching failed completely and they won. Boston got virtually zero value out of Schilling and Foulke but still made the playoffs. Frank Thomas missed most of the year and White Sox still won the WS. Atlanta's veteran OFers were flops and their staff was almost all on the DL, but they won the division and so on...Those are things totally apart from guys not playing up to expectations which is even more common.

Jim - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:23 PM EST (#138128) #

'Add it all up, and the fact that Overbay's bat isn't chop liver, and it's pretty reasonable to say that Overbay could be on par with Giambi in '06.'

It's not reasonable, but I don't feel like arguing about it anymore. Could it happen? Sure, Giambi could be hurt. Otherwise it's just wishcasting.

Mike D - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:32 PM EST (#138131) #

Boston's bullpen, top to bottom, is far, far worse than that of either the Jays or Yanks. I can't believe that some here believe it's better!

I can only conclude that people (a) didn't see the vastly weakened and severely declining duo of Mota and Foulke pitch last year, and (b) assume that Hansen and Delcarmen achieve 100% of their upside immediately. Seanez had a fine year, but he's never handled American League hitting well.

The odds of Boston having the best bullpen in the AL East are, conservatively, 1 in 20. That would entail better-than-expected seasons from Sox relievers, unexpected declines by the NY and Toronto bullpens, Foulke figuring out his mechanics despite his lower-body woes and Mota adding 5 mph to his fastball.

Nick - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 01:59 PM EST (#138134) #

Glevin, you conveniently left out all of the unexpected positives for those teams:

New York got a great year out of Giambi after he produced virtually nothing in 2004 and Torre was contemplating waiving him and sending him to the minors in April/May 2005. Going into 2005, the Yanks had no right to expect the production they got out of Cano, Wang, and Small and Chacon's results were far better than anything he had done previously.

The White Sox got results from Garland and Contreras that were far better than what they had ever previously produced.

Atlanta got better production out of Francoeur and Jorge Sosa than they could have ever dreamed of along with solid production from numerous other rookies that was much better than expected.

It's not like those teams experienced a couple things going wrong and everything else came in as expected. Those teams experienced success because they had a lot that went right for them despite a couple things going wrong. You implied that those playoff teams had bad luck but were so good that even with bad luck they were still good. On the contrary - yes, those teams were good, but they were also lucky in many respects and had a lot *go right* for them. That will be the case with any winning team. Playoff teams are generally good and lucky.

Spifficus - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 02:00 PM EST (#138135) #

Umm... the difference between the two defensively is not insignificant, as is the difference in playing time last year. Throw in the 6 year age difference, and it's confusing why there's such frothing at the mouth at this idea that there isn't that big of a gap between the two looking ahead to 2006.

If you want to say that you expect Giambi to get the same PA's as Overbay, fine. If you want to say that you don't expect any falloff from a 35 year-old Should-Be-DH, then fine, go ahead. If you want to say that there is no significant difference between a terrible defensive 1b and a very good defensive 1b (or want to challenge the notion that either Giambi is a terrible 1b, or Overbay is a very good defensive 1b), then feel free. There's enough things to talk here that it's not rediculous or a NONE chance, or even much of a tint of rose in the glasses.

Of course, I'm really just twiddling my thumbs until Spring Training :)

*Sigh*
*looks impatiently at the calendar*

CeeBee - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 02:45 PM EST (#138138) #

If Giambi's defense was even average Joe Torre would not be yanking him in the late innings of games where they have a close lead. As for what difference D makes, ask the pitchers.

Cristian - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 03:44 PM EST (#138143) #

As for what difference D makes, ask the pitchers.

Wouldn't their opinions be biased? I'd much rather base my opinion on objective sources.

CeeBee - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 03:52 PM EST (#138144) #

Well, my comment was somewhat "tongue in cheek" but I'd hazzard a guess that on average the pitching staff appreciates good D more than any other group, fans included. As for quantifying defence, judging by the posts on this forum it's not exactly a subject that is getting much agreement so I threw out a bit of a smilie, :)

Glevin - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 05:21 PM EST (#138155) #

"Glevin, you conveniently left out all of the unexpected positives for those teams"

No, I left them out on purpose because my point was not that everything goes wrong and nothing goes right, but that many things do go wrong. Many posters on every board believe that everything will go right. They won't. I have never seen a team get as lucky as the White Sox got last year, but they still had probably their best hitter miss most of the year. So, when people start projecting wins based on "Halladay will be healthier (probably), Adams, Hill, and Rios will all take major steps forward (doubtful), Burnett will pitch up to his capabilities (doubtful), Overbay will be as good as Giambi (doubtful)", and so on, one has to keep in mind that guys will get hurt. Guys will regress. Guys will dissapoint. Right now, the Yankees, White Sox, Indians, and Angels can afford that inevitability. (And Boston is not far off). The Jays can't.

Craig B - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 05:28 PM EST (#138157) #

Right now, the Yankees, White Sox, Indians, and Angels can afford that inevitability.

The Yankees can? Really? They are one of the thinnest teams in baseball, and were a step below those other 3 teams last year anyway...

Willy - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 05:47 PM EST (#138160) #

There's enough things to talk here that it's not rediculous ...

Spiffy, old boy, I wish to hell you'd learn to spell. It's "ridiculous", like your spelling.

Spifficus - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 06:14 PM EST (#138164) #

Heh, thanks Willy. Laziness, mental blocks and stupidity, all rolled into one... or should I say 8, for each error.

It's horrific to think that I actually did check over my posts before submitting... not that anyone could tell.

subculture - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 08:37 PM EST (#138169) #

I didn't realize what a storm my rating Overbay and Giambi would cause, and I didn't put much thought into it. But I still would rate them the same, b/c of the reasons that Spiff.. mentioned, and as well Giambi's health issues. Let's not forget those many years of extravagant OPS+ were aided by more than exercise and Corn Flakes. Didn't this guy have a tumor a while ago? While I hope he stays healthy as I think he's generally a good guy, I wouldn't be surprised to see him missing games again, or his numbers drop off sharply a la Sosa or Palmeiro.

And regarding defensive importance, where are all the guys that said keep Hudson b/c of all the runs he saves? Doesn't that apply to 1b as well? In fact, most hits that Hudson or any 2b/ss saves would be prevented singles. Whereas I'd say a much higher percentage of hits prevented by 1b/3b would be doubles and triples.

The same way that Hudson might be as valuable to a team as Glaus, Overbay could easily be as valuable as Giambi (even if both stay healthy and follow normal career patterns).

Glevin - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 11:08 PM EST (#138179) #

"The Yankees can? Really? They are one of the thinnest teams in baseball, and were a step below those other 3 teams last year anyway..."

The Yankees do not have depth at specific positions, but have overall depth. I wrote a couple of paragraphs, but think this speaks more. Have a look at the Yankees depth...The current Jays/Yankees OPS+ last year by position

C-94/105
1B-113/156
2B-92/102
3B-125/167
SS-87/121
LF-106(cat+Johnson/2)/125
CF-104/113
RF-84/132
DH-108/81

Jays-913
Yankees-1102

The Yankees could lose Arod, Jeter, and Sheffield and replace them with Joe Randa, Tike Redman, and Deivi Cruz and still have a better total than the Jays. (The Red Sox have 793 with CF and SS missing. Even giving them an average of 70 at those positions and they are at 933.)

Nick - Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 11:26 PM EST (#138183) #

<i>Right now, the Yankees, White Sox, Indians, and Angels can afford that inevitability. (And Boston is not far off). The Jays can't.</i><p>

I completely disagree with that. The Jays and Yankees have the same odds that a career minor leaguer (Small) will go 10-0 out of nowhere. That has absolutely nothing to do with good scouting or coaching or management - it's catching lightning in a bottle. No team is more likely than another to do that. Craig is right - the Yankees are thin. They have superior talent and monetary resources, but they are old and would need another miracle like Small, Chacon, etc. to stay afloat if injuries strike. Their lineup suffered no injuries of real consequence in 2005 and got expected production from just about everyone. They got full seasons out of Jeter, A-Rod, Sheffield, Posada, Matsui, and Giambi (although he wasn't good the first part of the season). Will that happen again? Who knows, but they have absolutely no one to step in for any of those guys. Who - Cairo, Crosby, Phillips? Please.

The Indians lost their best pitcher and AL ERA champ(Millwood) and a darn good reliever (Howry) and replaced them with inferior players. That's not chopped liver.

The Angels lost Washburn, their 2nd best starting pitcher last year. They'll lose B. Molina and Erstad is moving to CF which is pretty much a guaranteed trip to the DL for him. K-Rod has been great for them, but with his violent pitching motion, he could snap a ligament in his elbow at any time.

We'll see about Chicago. Like you said, they got very lucky last year. But they're still a good team and have added Thome, who could end up hitting 40 HR in 2006. He could also be bad, but that wouldn't be too much different from Everett last year.

Boston's offseason troubles have been well-documented. If Ramirez refuses to report, that team could be in for a chaotic season.

Of course, these are good teams, the best in the AL. I am just pointing out flaws to demonstrate that these teams are not invincible and on a completely different playing field than Toronto as you seem to think and has often been the case in the last 12 years. The Jays are in the conversation of the best teams in the AL.

Of course, things have to go right for the Jays to win, but things have to go right for *anyone* to win. I have seen no one say that all of Rios, Adams, and Hill will take major steps forward. I certainly don't believe that and I doubt anyone with a brain believes that. Simple probability dictates that won't happen. We hope it will, but I don't think anyone is counting on it. It is not unreasonable to see one or 2 them do it. But the Jays, like those other teams, need an unexpected player to have a breakout year like Wells had in 2003 and Hinske had in 2002. Or Garland in 2005, or Jenks in 2005, or Cano in 2005, or Small in 2005, or K-Rod in 2002.

So are we to expect that no Toronto rookie or "young" player or minor leaguer will ever come out of nowhere? It will happen. It may be next year or the year after. But it will happen.

To say that it is doubtful for Burnett to pitch to his capabilities makes no sense on its face. You are expecting him to underachieve? That just means your expectations for his achievement level are lower than most. Do you think he'll get injured, choke, what? It's one thing to think he's not that good of a pitcher, but to expect him to underachieve is a totally different argument.

The bottom line - in the past, the Jays would need everything to go right for them and everything to go wrong for their rivals to have a chance. That is no longer true. I agree the Yankees have more room for error because they have better talent. But the Jays have a better chance than they have had recently.

Also, your OPS+ analysis is woefully inadequate when comparing the 2 teams. OPS+ captures offense, which is ~40% of the game. The Jays' pitching is much better than New York's and their defense was better in 2005 but with the loss of Hudson and addition of Glaus and Overbay, we'll have to wait and see how that pans out. If you think the Yanks would be a better team than Toronto without A-Rod, Jeter, and Sheffield, than I guess we are wasting our time.

subculture - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 12:32 AM EST (#138186) #

I was going to comment the same, basically that using OPS+ as your sole method of proving the Yanks superiority doesn't make sense. Nobody is saying the Jays will score more runs than the Yanks or Red Sox - though I think most of us feel the gap will be smaller this year in runs scored.

It's pitching and defense that 'should' help us gain an advantage... and nobody seems to be saying the the Yanks or Red Sox are better in those areas than the Jays.

Glevin - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 12:59 AM EST (#138188) #

"Also, your OPS+ analysis is woefully inadequate when comparing the 2 teams. OPS+ captures offense, which is ~40% of the game. The Jays' pitching is much better than New York's and their defense was better in 2005 but with the loss of Hudson and addition of Glaus and Overbay, we'll have to wait and see how that pans out. If you think the Yanks would be a better team than Toronto without A-Rod, Jeter, and Sheffield, than I guess we are wasting our time."

I never said that they would be better, but their offense probably still would be. And read my post carefully. You wrote "they have absolutely no one to step in for any of those guys. Who - Cairo, Crosby, Phillips? Please." My point is that even with one or two major guys missing, the Yankees still have a good offense while the Blue Jays don't. And this is exactly when you can tell when fans don't pay close attention to the rest of baseball:

"but they are old and would need another miracle like Small, Chacon, etc. to stay afloat if injuries strike." Chacon had a 3.44 ERA last year pitching half the season for Colorado. A.J. burnett had a 3.44 ERA last year pitching the entire year in Florida. His ERA+ with the Yankees was 156 and overall it was 133. Burnett's was 117. He throws a fastball in the low to mid 90's with a very good curve and a decent changeup. So while people will talk about how awesome Burnett will be or how solid Chacin and Towers will be, Chacon last year had a better year than any of them have ever had but is relegated to being a fluke. Take a closer look at other teams. The Jays pen was great last year, but the Red Sox and Yankees have three guys each who can close. Yes, it is quite possible someone will be hurt next year, but they can survive that. That is the whole point. I think defense is overrated, but the Jays defense is now worse than the Yankees and Boston. The Jays pitching is probably better than the Yankees but not by much and certainly not close to the margin that seperates their offenses.

"To say that it is doubtful for Burnett to pitch to his capabilities makes no sense on its face. You are expecting him to underachieve? That just means your expectations for his achievement level are lower than most. Do you think he'll get injured, choke, what? It's one thing to think he's not that good of a pitcher, but to expect him to underachieve is a totally different argument."

I should have made myself clearer. It is doubtful that Burnett will pitch to the level of expectations of many fans. I expect an ERA of around 4.00 if he's healthy would be reasonable based on the league (huge difference. During Halladay's career the league ERA was 4.69, during Burnett's it has been 4.12), park (Florida is a great pitcher's park, Toronto a great hitter's), and infield defense (Toronto now has a bad infield defense, Florida's was good last year) changes which will all negatively effect his numbers.

Glevin - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 01:29 AM EST (#138192) #

"It's pitching and defense that 'should' help us gain an advantage... and nobody seems to be saying the the Yanks or Red Sox are better in those areas than the Jays"

First of all,the major point was not that the Yankees were better offensively, it's that they are SO MUCH better offensively. 8 out of the 9 offensive catagories they had, and still have, leads in.

Want to look at potential (purely speculative) lineups?
1-Adams-87 OPS + (.325 OBP), Damon, 113 OPS+ (.366 OBP)
2-Catalanotto/Johnson-106 OPS+, Jeter-121 OPS+
3-Wells-104 OPS+, Arod-167 OPS+
4-Glaus-125 OPS+, Sheffield-132 OPS+
5-Hillenbrand-108, Giambi 156
6-Overbay-114, Matsui-125
7-Zaun-94, Posada 105
8-Hill-92, Cano-102
9-Rios-84, Bernie-81

Again, it's not that they are better, they are WAY WAY WAY better. The Jays have ONE guy who had OPS+ of over 120 last year. The Yankees have five. The Jays have four hitters with OPS+ of under 100, the Yankees have one.

Anyway, back to the rest of the post. The Jays defense is certainly not a strong point anymore. It is, at best average now, and their IF defense is worse than that.

The Jays pitching is probably better than that of New York and Boston, but if so, it's not by much. Halladay is a complete stud, the second best pitcher in the league. But after that, I like both New York's and (especially) Boston's 2-5 starters better than the Jays'.
Halladay,Burnett, Chacin, Towers, Lilly
Schilling, Beckett, Clement, Arroyo, Wakefield, Wells, Pappelbon
Johnson, Mussina, Chacon, Pavano, Wang.

Even if you think the next 4 are even, the difference between the Yankees and Jays rotations is the difference between Halladay and Randy Johnson. Is that a big difference? Ya, sure. Will it make up for the fact that the Yankees are likely to get more offense out of 8 of the 9 starting hitters. Not even close. So, much worse offense, even defense, and slightly better starting pitching.

Spifficus - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 02:37 AM EST (#138196) #

Ok, I'm curious. Are you going to say ANYTHING defensively, or are you going to hang your offensive numbers out to dry 8 times over like my spelling of 'rediculous'? :)

J Mc - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 10:13 AM EST (#138208) #

This is my first post. So I'll keep it brief. Long time Jays fan, first time poster. A number of Bauxites have commented on this analysis. Some have gone so far as to put up numbers or rankings on the Red Sox potential SS and CF which are speculative (as is some of the analysis). I know this may seem pretty obvious but, both the Yankees and the Red Sox have at least two hitters apiece (Sox; Man Ram and Ortix, Yanks; A-Rod, Sheffield,& Matsui) that are better than any hitter in Jays current line-up. One thing that occurs to me is that while many might say the Jays could have as good pitching staff as either of these teams, one of these teams could easily end up with the Rocket. That being said, I sincerely believe that JP has done a great job this off-season to make the Jays a contender again, and has renewed much of the (bandwagon jumpers perhaps)fan interest in Jays. I still think a third place finish is very probable. It's sad cause the Jays and JP have to compete with two teams that spent so much the incurred the wrath of the dreaded luxury tax. I still believe that if the Jays stay healthy they'll contend and should either the Sox or the Yankees falter they'll get their opportunity. Once again the Jays must beat the teams the capable of beating and play .500 ball or better against the Yanks and Sox. Really wasn't brief at all...Sorry

subculture - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 10:54 AM EST (#138210) #

Glevin, you seem very hung up on OPS+, though you'd already made your point that the Red Sox and Yanks still have the top 2 offensive lineups in the league (I think we'd made that point too, which you'll see in my rankings where I had the Yanks hitters ahead of the Jays).
Now how many wins does that translate to?

Now, factor in the aging process - the Jays are a much younger team on the way up. Of the Yankees, who might have a career year in their future? Maybe Jeter & A-Rod, maybe Cano. Definitely not anybody else - in fact, it's almost a guarantee that the rest will decline. On the Jays? Hill, Adams, Wells, Overbay, Rios, Hinske, Johnson are all likely to improve. Only Zaun is at a point where a decline is probable.

Pitching? The Yanks top pitchers are dinosaurs, with Johnson losing velocity, and Mussina's best years behind him. And they still have Sturtze pitching key innings! Without Rivera, their BP would be Farnsworth and shlubs. Dotel MIGHT pitch well again, but not until next year.

The Jays top pitchers Halladay, Burnett, and BJ Ryan are in their prime NOW. The rest are also either upcoming or in their prime. There's no weakling on the staff. If Ryan gets hurt, both Frasor and Speier can close. Righty/lefty balance? Nobody in the league is better.

One of the reasons the Jays performed above expectations last year was b/c they had no weak links in the lineup, even when players got hurt. Hill, Hillenbrand, and the OF platoons all showed competent versatility. Will the Yanks lineup do the same? The 'HUGE' OPS+ difference will be lessened with an injury to someone like A-Rod or Damon, who will be replaced not with a guy like Hillenbrand, but instead with Crosby.

Defensively, the Damon pickup makes a huge difference to the Yanks. Now only 1b is a gaping hole (injuries notwithstanding). They have an advantage over the Jays at 3b (unless Koskie plays there), SS (smaller if Hill plays there). I prefer the Jays at CF, RF, 1B.

Am I saying that the Jays should be favoured to win? No, both the Yanks and the Red Sox have proven they can win and compete in this division for too long. But I am saying that the gap is much smaller now, to a point where luck and injuries are likely to have a greater impact on the standings than the performance of the individual players themselves.

Nick - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 11:25 AM EST (#138214) #

Glevin, you're completely missing the point. Last year, the Jays' team ERA was a half run better than New York's and they've added Burnett, Ryan, and hopefully a healthy Ted Lilly and a full season of Roy Halladay. Granted, there could be some dropoff from Towers and/or Chacin. The Yanks have added nothing to their rotation and treaded water at best by losing Gordon and signing Farnsworth. They have also added a couple mediocre lefties in Myers and Villone. Nobody knows what they'll get from Dotel, so they can't count on that. If anything, Johnson and Mussina will keep getting gradually worse and the rest of the starters have collectively one good, full season of starting pitching under their belts (Pavano - 2004). You seem to have a higher opinion on Chacon than the rest of MLB GM's who actually earn a salary evaluating baseball talent. The Yanks got him for a song last year. He had a 7.11 ERA in 2004. His K/BB ratio in 152 IP was 79/66. As you said, he got good results last year, but you are acting as if it is a given that he will deliver above average results again. Objectively speaking, he is just as likely to drop off as Towers or Chacin. How have the Yankees made up that half run of ERA so that the Jays have only a slightly better pitching staff? Answer - they haven't.

Your arguments acknowledge no negatives about the Yankees and acknowledge no positives about the Jays other than that Halladay is a stud, which is impossible to argue against. Open your eyes and try being objective. No one is saying the Yankees suck, the Jays are great. Hell, I still think New York will finish ahead of Toronto. But you're acting like nothing's changed in the last 10 years and that these Yankees are the same as the 1998 Yankees and these Jays are the same as the 2004 Jays. Things are changing and the gap is somewhat narrowed. To refuse to acknowledge that is ridiculous.

Glevin - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 12:10 PM EST (#138218) #

"Now, factor in the aging process - the Jays are a much younger team on the way up. Of the Yankees, who might have a career year in their future? Maybe Jeter & A-Rod, maybe Cano. Definitely not anybody else - in fact, it's almost a guarantee that the rest will decline. On the Jays? Hill, Adams, Wells, Overbay, Rios, Hinske, Johnson are all likely to improve. Only Zaun is at a point where a decline is probable"

Are Hill, Rios, and Adams likely to improve based on age? Probably, but none are established enough to ensure they won't fall backwards. Plenty of players come up at 24 or 25 and look OK and then do nothing... Wells? Possible, but 3 of his last 4 years have looked pretty identical. Hinske won't get enough ABs to improve and Overbay is 29, not an age where one should expect a sudden jump in numbers and Johnson is also 29 and is never going to be more than a 4th OFer. And yes, the Yankees are aging, but Gary Sheffield at 37 is still much better than Alex Rios at 25. The Yankees are an old team, but the core of the Jays is not young. Personally, I only expect Zaun and Catalanotto to decline on offense and Rios, Hill, and Adams to improve slightly.

HollywoodHartman - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 12:24 PM EST (#138219) #

Geez Gelvin, you're really bumming me out.

Glevin - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 12:49 PM EST (#138221) #

"Glevin, you're completely missing the point. Last year, the Jays' team ERA was a half run better than New York's and they've added Burnett, Ryan, and hopefully a healthy Ted Lilly and a full season of Roy Halladay"

I got the point, I just don't think it makes much of a difference. Closers don't pitch enough innings to make a huge difference. Burnett will help, but I think he's one of those overrated players in baseball. Just the league and park alone should bump his ERA up to around 4.00. Is that going to be a hell of a lot better than Dave Bush would have been? Not in my opinion. I will be shocked if Towers has numbers near last year, not only because of his incredibly easy schedule last year, but because I don't trust junkballer righties at all. I expect Lilly to be better than last year but I think Chacin will be worse. He walks too many guys, gives up too many HRs, was really bad the last couple of months, and relies too much on a funky delivery. Halladay, I imagine will be healthier this year which would provide the biggest boost. So, the rotation overall, will probably be better next year. However, I think the pen will probably be worse. Every single member of the pen, aside from Batista, had by far the best year of their career last year. As a whole, the pen is not likely to repeat.

"Objectively speaking, he (Chacon) is just as likely to drop off as Towers or Chacin"

No, he's not. Chacon has very good stuff and has never had a chance to pitch outisde Colorado. Towers and Chacin are junkballers.

"Things are changing and the gap is somewhat narrowed. To refuse to acknowledge that is ridiculous."

I have never not acknowledged that. I just think the narrowing of the gap is not very large, was done at the wrong time, in the wrong way, and was done at enormous risk. The Jays have a shot, if things go right at getting into the playoffs this year. I don't think it will happen, but it could. But 3 or 4 years down the road, the Jays are going to be in very bad shape.

Nick - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 01:01 PM EST (#138222) #

I don't see how Chacon gets credit for having "stuff" despite career mediocre numbers while Burnett does not. Are you seeing something the rest of MLB does not?

It's easy to say the Jays have built their team the wrong way. It is much more difficult to actually give an alternative plan of action that could have been both realistically executed and proven more successful.

Nick - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 01:12 PM EST (#138223) #

I love how you just make a blanket statement that the pen will be worse while glossing over the fact that the Jays just signed one of the best closers in baseball.

Closers don't make a huge difference?? Since you respect the Yankees so much, tell any member of that organization that closers don't make a huge difference and see what kind of response you get.

Chacon has great stuff, but Chacin and Towers are junkballers? I already posted Chacon's K/BB ratios. What in those numbers implies he has great stuff and that he will be blowing guys away in 2006?

The Jays have added two hitters that are better than anyone else they had in their lineup last year. You still have not explained how the Yankees have closed the gap in pitching since last year. I guess we're not getting anywhere, so we'll just have to wait for the season to start.

subculture - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 03:05 PM EST (#138234) #

"Chacon has very good stuff and has never had a chance to pitch outisde Colorado. Towers and Chacin are junkballers."

Chacin throws as hard or harder than most lefties. Junkballer makes it sound like they're throwing spitballs or knucklers. Towers hits 94mph on the gun... but more importantly he doesn't walk people and puts the ball in play.

Let's look at the 2005 numbers.

SEASON G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA
A) 2005 33 33 2 1 209.2 237 101 86 24 29 112 3.71
B) 2005 27 24 0 0 152.2 135 59 58 14 66 79 3.44

Pitcher A threw 33% more innings yet walked walked half as many guys as Pitcher B, while striking out hitters at a higher rate. A also threw 2 complete games and a shut-out, while B never went more than 8 innings (ESPN profile questions his stamina). Pitcher B benefited from only ONE unearned run against him all year (!) while A had 15 against him. Yet the ERAs are similar - now tell me who had the lucky year?

Pitcher B is Chacon, and A is Josh Towers. Despite Chacon's 'great stuff', he strikes out less guys and has less control, and less stamina.

Hodgie - Friday, December 30 2005 @ 05:07 PM EST (#138245) #

I find it interesting that when talking about the gap that exists between the Jays and the Evil Empire/Evil Empire Jr. the discussion revolves around last year's records. If I am not mistaken, the Jays Pythagorean Win/Loss record was 88-74 while the Yankees/Sox records were 90-72. Much of the under-achievement for the Jays can be attributed to a horrific record in one run games; a MLB worst 16-31 while NY and Boston posted 27-16 and 27-15 records respectively.

It is my contention that the gap is much narrower than otherwise acknowledged, and that the Blue Jays suffered as such from an unusual amount of bad luck last year, despite not getting what I would deem career years from anyone!

Glevin's subjective arguement detailing a probable decline for the Jays pen seems unwarranted, BJ Ryan has established a proven track record over the last 3 years as one of the most dominant relievers in the AL, players such as Frasor and Chulk were both in their sophmore years and are more than likely to continue showing improvement instead of regressing, and players such as Schoeneweis and Speier performed pretty much at their career norms. Meanwhile, New York and Boston both finished in the bottom 5 in the AL with respect to bullpen VORP and have done little to improve. Farnsworth for Gordon is a lateral move at best and possibly worse given Farnsworth's track record while Villone and Myers will have very limited roles. Boston on the other hand is praying for a rebirth of two pitchers, Mota and Foulke, that another acquisition is more succesful than his last two stints in the AL (Seanez) and that a number of rookies will immediately fullfil their promise. Hardly a ringing endorsement for either of those teams.

Michael - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 10:59 AM EST (#138289) #

If I am not mistaken, the Jays Pythagorean Win/Loss record was 88-74 while the Yankees/Sox records were 90-72.

If only that were the complete truth. Since the Jays may well have improved by nearly 2 wins on NYY. But if you are going to use the statistics and the sabermetrics be good to use the full picture. The Jays got lucky in their runs scored given their hits/walks. I.e., they got unrepeatable timely hitting. So you can break up a team into their actual record, their first order pyth, their second order pyth, and their third order pyth. Here are the AL East teams broken down that way.

Team    Wins   1st   2nd   3rd   Total  Average
Yankees 95     89.9  93.3  93.9  372.1  93
Sox     95     89.7  90.4  91.1  366.2  91.5
Jays    80     87.5  79.2  80.4  327.1  81.75
Orioles 74     73.3  79.6  81.0  307.9  77
Rays    67     63.6  68.8  72.2  271.6  68

So the Jays really have a gap of 10 games on the Sox and 12 games on the Yankees. To me, right now, the Jays look like a 83-88 win team (that is better than last years team). I expect the Sox and Yankees to be between 90-95 wins again this year. I think the Sox, assuming they find even an 80 OPS+ CF will be better than last year. I expect the Yankees to be about the same as last year (assuming no major additions, if they add the Rocket forget about it).
So I think the difference is about 7 games between the teams now. That is small enough that if we get lucky and they get unlucky then we'll pass them. But to think the Jays have closed most, or all, of the gap is optimistic wishcasting at this point.

subculture - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 01:16 PM EST (#138309) #

I think the Sox need more than an 80+ OPS CF... too many questions at this point. Who leads off that lineup? Who plays SS? Who protects Ramiriez in LF? Damon was key to that lineup and defense. Can Lowell revive his career? How will the team chemistry be after all the changes and leadership void? Can it still handle 'Manny being Manny'? Is Schilling done? Can Beckett pitch under pressure and with the Green Monster?

The same goes for all the NY additions - can they play under the microscope, or will they go from star performers to underachievers like Vasquez and others.

Rob - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 01:34 PM EST (#138311) #

they got unrepeatable timely hitting

Funny. During the season, other people kept bemoaning the fact that the Jays were "brutal in the clutch." They could "never get the runner home from third" and all that...

Michael - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 02:11 PM EST (#138313) #

they got unrepeatable timely hitting

Funny. During the season, other people kept bemoaning the fact that the Jays were "brutal in the clutch." They could "never get the runner home from third" and all that...

The jays had untimely scoring (I.e., coming back to lose a potential blow out by only one run), but their hitting in the clutch was fine.

In 2005 the jays were .267/.340/.433/.772 with runners in scoring position versus .265/.331/.407/.738 overall.

They were worse in close an late situations, but they were better than you'd expect in getting to those close and late situations (instead of being losing by a lot and late).

The lucky (from a run scoring point of view) timing of hits is what the first order and second order information tells you.

Geoff - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 02:21 PM EST (#138314) #

Nice to see that Craig B can say this to me, I can quote him on it, and then have the Bauxite admin remove my comment and tell me to repost because I quoted his profanity.

I only asked him why he said it. And I wasn't referring to only his putting Bernie at DH, but everyone. And I wanted to know why a guy with an OPS of .688 is a popular choice for DH.

So here, I've reposted, without quoting the comment but referencing it instead. Will this comment be censored?

CeeBee - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 02:30 PM EST (#138316) #

Luckily for the Jays they actually get to play 162 games for real and what gets said here has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the games. :) While this is a fun read for the most part I don't let numbers get in the way of a good baseball game or season. And don't get me wrong, I like numbers and always have, especially after the numbers get put up on the board. :)

Geoff - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 02:46 PM EST (#138317) #

Luckily for the Jays they actually get to play 162 games for real and what gets said here has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the games.

I'm with you on that, CeeBee. Some think that numbers don't lie, but they do. The numbers put up last year will not tell you what you'll see this year. Performance is not steady. Anyone have numbers on the average deviation of a player's stats? ;)

Players break out with incredible numbers: Brian Roberts, Derrek Lee. Players get injured: Doc, Lilly. And Players just lose it and seem to go downhill: Hinske, Alomar.

But that doesn't mean a change of fortune could occur. My apologies to those who try to compute the exact value of a team by the numbers and determine how many wins it will get, but I can't see how that's not a waste of time.

subculture - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 03:49 PM EST (#138327) #

"My apologies to those who try to compute the exact value of a tam by the numbers and determine how many wins it will get, but I can't see how that's not a waste of time."

Well, it's no more a waste of time than anything else posted on forums is it? Trying to make an educated guess about anything (stocks, weather, politics) is just simply that - using the indicators like past performance, trends and other analysis to form a reasonable outcome for the future. I might not agree with someone like Glevin about the Jays vs the Yanks, but that doesn't mean it's not fun to have the debate, nor is it a waste of time. Plus you're forced to see other perspectives and factors that generally help you form an objective opinion, which is never a bad thing.

Geoff - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 04:17 PM EST (#138329) #

'Waste of time' is a harsh evaluation for any sports talk, particularly from a participant, you're right.

I merely wanted to put in my view that I believe it's difficult to make predictions of a team's performance based on individual players' stats and in my mind impossible to predict the precise win total vs. other teams. Totally mind boggling to me how one would attempt to do so, or put any stock in it.

The Yankees put together All-Stars and everyone expects 100+ wins. Do they get it? not as often as has been predicted. How many wins would they lose last year without Chacon and Wang and Small? Who expected those players to do anything for the Yanks last year? I could go on forever with these cases, from the Tigers to the Mets to the Royals and on and on.

I hope my intended discouragement of team predictions isn't taken as a rule rather than a consideration. Just because I snicker when playoff winners are predicted every year doesn't mean I expect everyone to halt making them. (BTW, who's the best predictor of playoff teams in the last decade? Just curious.)

I too make predictions on players based on their previous performance, and use this to argue who should play or shouldn't. (I'm still pulling for Koskie to be the Jays' 3B at Glaus the DH, and shudder to think that the Jays would trade Corey for Shannon and what that would do to the team defence.)

And I know others out there don't share my belief that each player is not an island surrounded by his statistics and that his stats are not affected by the performance of his teammates. My view is that players are not isolated, that the environment and performance of his teammates plays a role in how he performs and for this reason, predicting how a team will perform is impossible.

In short, player predictions: risky; team predictions: mission impossible.

Chuck - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 06:13 PM EST (#138341) #

How many wins would they lose last year without Chacon and Wang and Small?

How many wins would they have instead if Pavano and Wright had not been hurt and had been as effective as in 2004? The success of the trio you cited was in indeed "good luck". But it offset the "bad luck" of losing Pavano and Wright in the first place.

subculture - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 06:14 PM EST (#138342) #

"In short, player predictions: risky; team predictions: mission impossible."

Yes, I hear what you're saying, but going off tangent for a moment, it reminds of me the Asimov sci-fi series which actually said its much easier to predict the future related to a group, versus any one individual. And for a baseball team, I'd have to say it's more reliable to make a comment like -
"The Jays will win 85+ games next year" then a comment like

"Vernon Wells will steal 20+ bases or hit 30 hrs next year".

One injury to Wells, or a serious slump, and the individual prediction is out the window. However if you make a prediction for a team, you can take into account a typical or average amount of injury games lost, factor in things like team depth, ability of the GM to acquire talent or a good farm system in order to come up with a likely range of wins.

I do agree that player numbers do not occur in a vacuum of course. For example, I feel the Jays pitchers performed even better than their numbers indicated last year, considering they played so many games against the Red Sox, Yanks, and Orioles lineups. I believe that adding a guy like Glaus and Overbay will make the other batters in the lineup stronger (hitters hit better with men on base, and with stronger hitters behind them). And holes in the Yanks lineup at DH (and potential injury spots) and Red Sox at CF, SS, etc can have a greater negative impact then by simply decreasing the individual spots OPS+.

I'm optimistic of the Jay's chances, but think there's about a 50% chance of them making the post-season. I'd say 75% if they'd managed to get Giles and retain Hudson, put Hill at SS and keep Koskie at 3b, which would have given them a league-best defense IMO. But Giles stayed in SD so JP did what was probably the next best option available.

Named For Hank - Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 07:30 PM EST (#138344) #

So here, I've reposted, without quoting the comment but referencing it instead. Will this comment be censored?

Geoff, trying to keep the site clean, organized and readable is like herding cats. And now we're increasingly spending what little time we have mediating disputes between posters.

Nothing was done out of malice or ill-will. If one comment was removed and another was not, it was likely because one comment was seen and the other was not. I don't know the specifics here, but are you referring to Craig's use of "RTFA" that now appears to be gone? And did you quote it back as "RTFA"?

I cannot see a reason that this would be a problem, as it clearly skirts around the F-word. Or did you write it all out? If that is the case, I think the reason for the removal and the request to re-post without it are very easily understandable: one includes the word, and one merely implies it.

As to your question, it is clearly answered in the first few lines of Craig's article, which is probably why he found the question frustrating.

When you have a problem with something like this, please consider e-mailing. You were contacted by e-mail rather than called out publicly on the site; can you not extend us that courtesy back?

Comparing the Contenders | 88 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.