Figure some kid who should be a future starter will get the 7th pen slot, pitching long relief and the like.

Rosario is out of options, so I'd imagine that is who will get the spot.  The Chief's starting rotation will look lights out with McGowan, Janssen, Taubenheim, Ramirez and either Towers or Marcum starting the year there.

 I'd take it.

 Granted, I have problems with any system that suggests Adams will be better than Hill (and I like Adams), and the pitching seems a bit too optimistic. Although in that respect, I like and agree with the general idea that the Jays have a bunch of guys who could be above average if a few things break well. I wouldn't bet much money on it, but those projections for Thomson and Towers aren't massively optimistic - they're both in line with relatively recent performances - and if the Jays got just one of them, they'd be in pretty good shape.

Despite the fact that it appears as though ZIPS is projecting playing time (for Thomas and others), ZIPS does not project playing time. 

I believe that ZIPS projects playing time with regards to injury. Clearly it pays no regard to merit.

Too positive- Lyle Overbay

  Really? Overbay's projection looks pretty close to what he did this year, and not too far off his career numbers:

Career: 293/372/467

2006:   312/372/508

2007:   301/374/491

    Here are some of my questions about the ZIPS projections.  If I'm misunderstanding something, please correct me.  Otherwise I'll have grave doubts about this computer model.

   1) how can Janssen reasonably be projected as an above-average starter in the major leagues in 2007 when he is only a year removed from Class A and he was an abysmal 1-8 with a 8.58 ERA over his last eight starts in the majors last year?

     2) how can Jamie Vermilyea reasonably be projected as an above-average starter in the majors in 2007 when he has never played a game in the majors and is not even regarded as one of the better prospects in the farm system?  (Triple A hitters managed to pound him for a .291 average last year. I would expect that major-league hitters would do a lot better than that.)

    3) how can Towers reasonably be projected as an above-average starter in the majors in 2007 after a disastrous 2006 season where he sported an ERA of 8.42 and opponents hit a hefty .343 against him? 

The projection that impresses me most is Adam Lind's -- if the Jays can get that kind of production out of him this year, especially the 39 doubles, they'll have done very well for themselves.

Rios seems to be short on power -- I really can't see him hitting fewer than 20-25 HRs over a healthy full season -- and .280 ought to be his baseline BA, but it's good to get an objective view of his likely production. Aaron Hill may not exceed that line by as much as many of us think. He unquestionably has the talent to hit .300 with extra-base power, but maybe not this year -- he still seems prone to lengthy slumps. The Russ Adams projection seems right on to me -- if the Jays committed to him at 2B for a full year (which they obviously won't be doing), he's do at least that well. Reed Johnson's line looks exactly right. If this lineup stays healthy, it should get on base and it should score.

On the mound, Burnett's projection doesn't seem outlandish, except that I'd like to see more IP from him in real life. Zips would have you think the Jays bullpen would be one of the best in the league, but even if Accardo does much more poorly than this, as I expect he will, this still projects as a very solid relief corps. I think Towers', Janssen's and Chacin's peripherals are all pretty accurate predictions, but I don't see those lines projecting to sub-5.00 ERAs in the AL -- especially Towers, unless those 28 HRs are all bases-empty. If he's used strictly in relief, McGowan should exceed his projection; I don't see any way in which Vermilyea comes close to his.

Dan, I'm not terribly familiar with Zips -- is there a reason that no pitcher on the staff, including Halladay, is projected to win more than 14 games? I assume that the model more or less dismisses wins as too variable a statistic to predict. Good work, and thanks!

For the record, here are the ZIPS from 2006. http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2006_zips_projections_toronto_blue_jays/

Personally, I put almost no stock in these. If you took an knowledgable person on this site and asked them to project the numbers for the Jays, they would do as well. The vast majority of these projections are reasonable with Rios and Hill being projected to far too low and Chacin, Towers, Marcum, Accardo, and most of the Jays pitchers being rated too highly.

Does anyone know where Justin Miller is now? Just curious is all...

Also of note in the Sackmann article is this comment in relation to the jump in average ZiPS ERA from the Ace to #2 starter:

The biggest difference is between the #1 and #2 starters, suggesting why having two aces catapults a team so far ahead of the pack.

This would suggest that the focus of our concerns should not be on the #3-6 starters whom, by projections, look like they'll fit the roles adequately, but on the entrenchment of AJ as a 180 inning-sub 4 ERA guy.  This would give us two front end starters who could shave over a run-and-a-half off the average every time through the rotation.

This would suggest that the focus of our concerns should not be on the #3-6 starters whom, by projections, look like they'll fit the roles adequately, but on the entrenchment of AJ as a 180 inning-sub 4 ERA guy. 

Except that Burnett is already entrenched at #2. No amount of focusing figures to change that, or to necessarily get him to pitch like the #1B we hope he can become to Halladay's #1A.

On the other hand, while the #3-6 spots could well be average within the context of #3-6 pitchers, the organization does have work to do, namely figuring out who specifically these people are. While Chacin seems to be the de facto #3, I'd imagine that the focus at spring training will be on sorting out which of Thomson, Marcum, Towers and Janssen start the year at #4 and #5.

while the #3-6 spots could well be average within the context of #3-6 pitchers, the organization does have work to do, namely figuring out who specifically these people are

My point is, that the bigger gauge of our success will be the front two's ability to give us 400 innings at 3.3 ERA+.  I think we have enough competition for the back end to get vanilla production there.  But, as the article suggests, the difference maker in a rotation is having the two studs at the beginning.

I didn't say entrenched as a #2.

My mistake. I guess I misunderstood "This would suggest that the focus of our concerns should [be] on the entrenchment of AJ as a 180 inning-sub 4 ERA guy." I guess I didn't understand what that meant.

I think we were talking at cross-purposes. It sounds like you are assuming that #3-6 will provide average (for #3-6) performance, and huge potential gains therefore rest with Burnett, a #2, hopefully performing at a #1 level.

I meant to suggest that Burnett is the #2, as we all know, and nothing is going to change that, be it an ERA of 2.50 or an ERA of 5.00. My concern, from a roster management perspective (as opposed to yours, from a roster performance perspective) is on figuring out who makes up the balance of the rotation. While many of the projections have all of Chacin/Thomson/Marcum/Janssen/Towers as indistinguishable league averagish types (presumably leading to your confidence about #3-6), my concern is that this may not be the case at all. There may well be 2 or 3 pitchers in that group who can deliver a 4.50-5.00 ERA, but I'm skeptical that all five can. My concerns lie with the organization being able to identify the 2 or 3 who can. Not that that I believe management to be an inept group of decision-makers, but rather because of the innate difficulty in forecasting young pitchers (or any pitchers for that matter). I do know that none of these pitchers will be given as long a leash as Towers was in 2006, so I would expect to see a lot of aggressive flip-flopping.

That's not a realistic expectation, given their histories.  360 innings at 3.5 ERA would be the optimistic account, and that's ZIPS'  view.  330 innings at 3.7 would be the pessimistic view, and that's MARCEL's.

That's the point.  The Jay's success this year could bear more on how close Doc and AJ get to 400 IP and 3.3 ERA+ (ZiPS 3.5 prediction is given that they play the home games in Rogers Center, is it not?), rather than how their back end performs.

Granted, if the #5 guy had an ERA+ of 5.75 that may offset Ace performance out of the top two, but is that reasonable?

As for the unreasonableness of 400 IP out Doc and AJ, it should not be expected, but it would not be unreasonable.  Doc has pitched over 200 IP three of the last five years, while averaging exactly 200 inning over that period.  AJ has exceeded 200 IP twice in those five years.  So a crude analysis would suggest that there is a one in four chance that both exceed 200 innings, one would assume a slightly greater chance that they would combine for over 400 innings.

potential gains therefore rest with Burnett, a #2, hopefully performing at a #1 level

My point of emphasis with Burnett is how much he pitches.  If he peforms at a level like last year (<4.00 ERA) for 180+ innings, then that would mark a significant improvement over the average #2 starter and, as the article suggests, significantly affect the success of the club.

My concern, from a roster management perspective (as opposed to yours, from a roster performance perspective) is on figuring out who makes up the balance of the rotation.

I see your point here and it is a concern.  I am concerned that Janssen and/or Marcum (or McGowan/Rosario for that matter), could be pitching better than one or more of Chacin/Thomson/Towers, but not get a starting role due to 'other' factors (salaries, waiver risks etc).  I wonder if Towers pitched average during ST and Janssen (for example) was excellent, could we sneak Mr. Towers through waivers again.  Or could we trade him.