Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Jays Team of the decade

These last decade retrospective things are all over the place at the moment, and since I never saw a bandwagon I wasn't tempted to jump on, here's my picks for a Jays' team of the last ten years.

Lineup
Criterion: 150 Games at the position.
Catcher: Gregg Zaun
From 2004-2008. 1922 PA, .255/.354/.399, 97 OPS+
The Jays had no shortage of catchers over the last ten years. 21 guys appeared behind the plate, but Zaun had nearly twice the plate appearances of his nearest rival - Darrin Fletcher.
First Base:   Carlos Delgado
From 2000-2004. 3299 PA. .296/.419/.578, 154 OPS+.
Only Lyle Overbay joins Delgado with over 150 games played as a regular first bagger, and whilst Overbay's numbers are not to be sniffed at he is almost 200 points of OPS behind Delgado in 1000 less plate appearances.
Second Base: Aaron Hill
From 2005-2009. 2633 PA. .285/.337/.434, 102 OPS+.
Hill is comfortably ahead of the O'Dog who held down the starting job for the three years before he arrived, his OPS+ is 9 points ahead and he has over 800 more Plate Appearances. The decade didn't start so well as Homer Bush put up a very forgettable .612 OPS between 2000 and 2002.
Third Base: Scott Rolen.
From 2008-2009. 840 PA, .288/.358/.452, 115 OPS+
A close contest between Rolen and Glaus. Glaus played a little more (250 extra PA) and hit a little better (121 OPS+). But, I'm giving it to Rolen for his quite brilliant defense, Glaus was no slouch and was quite excellent at some of the defensive duties - charging in on bunts and throwing bare-handed in particular, Rolen's defense though was just a treat to watch throughout his time here.
Shortstop:   Marco Scutaro.
From: 2008-2009. 1272 PA, .275/.362/.384, 100 OPS+
23 guys suited up for at least one game at short. Do you remember Jorge Velandia or Luis Figueroa? Are you, like me, trying to forget the Royce Clayton or Chris Woodward eras? Alex Gonzalez saw the most time of anyone at short with 1294 PA's in the decade's early years. Scutaro is right behind him in playing time and obviously way ahead of him as a hitter. Chris Woodward, Russ Adams and Johnny Mac are the others to have played at least 150 games at short. It's been a pretty dismal ten years for Jays' shortstops.
Leftfield: Shannon Stewart
From: 2000-2002, 2008. 2510 PA, .305/.362/.457, 111 OPS+
This could equally easily have gone to Adam Lind or Little Cat. Sparky also made the games played requirement and wasn't too far away by the numbers. Lind had the best overall OPS= by seven points over Stewart, but Shannon led in PA and OBP so I'm going to give him the nod.
Centerfield: Vernon Wells.
From 2000-2009. 5225 PA, .281/.330/.472, 107 OPS+.
No competition here, only Jose Cruz Jr. also reached the 150 game mark.
Right Field: Alex Rios.
From: 2004-2009. 3353 PA, .285/.335/.451, 105 OPS+
Raul Mondesi was the only other option to Rios and he hit a little worse and had under half the plate appearances, although he did have a comfortable lead in tattoos.
Designated Hitter: Brad Fullmer.
From: 200-2001. 1097 PA, .284/.333/.499, 110 OPS+
This one was a toss-up really between Fullmer, Frank Thomas and Josh Phelps. Thomas had a slight lead in OPS+ but was 400 PA behind Fullmer, Phelps’s overall numbers are very similar to Fullmer's just a smidgen worse. Very little in it, I'm giving it to Fullmer as he had the lead in power numbers.

Bench
Criterion: 150 Games at any position
Catcher: Darrin Fletcher
Corner Infielder: Eric Hinske
Middle Infielder: Chris Woodward
Outfield: Reed Johnson
Big Scary Bat: Matt Stairs

Rotation
Criterion:   Minimum 200 IP, Started 60 % of games played.
Starter:   Roy Halladay
From: 2000-2009. 267 GS, 139-69, 133 ERA+
Over 100 wins, 38 complete games and 850 more strikeouts than any other Jays starter over the decade.
Starter:   A.J Burnett
From: 2006-2008. 80GS, 38-26, 111 ERA+
Love him or hate him, he was pretty effective whilst he was here.
Starter:   David Wells
From: 2000. 35 GS, 20-8, 123 ERA+
Only one season for Boomer, but it was a rather good one. He went 20-8 with a 4.11 ERA and 166/31 K/BB. That’s the decade’s best season by a Jay’s starter not named Halladay.
Starter:   Shaun Marcum
From: 2005-2008. 64 GS, 24-17, 111 ERA+
Starter:   Jesse Litsch
From: 2007-2009. 50GS, 20-19, 113 ERA+
The final two rotation spots could easily go two of four ways; I think Marcum and Litsch have a slight edge over Chacin and Bush. Ted Lilly racked up just over 500 IP, but his 102 ERA+ leaves him a little off the pace

Bullpen
Criterion: 100 IP 80% in relief.
Spot Starter/Long Relief: Gustavo Chacin
From: 2004-2007. 58G, 25-15, 0 SV, 108 ERA+
Ignoring the bullpen criterion mentioned above. I’m putting Gus here more as a spot starter for when A.J has an owie, and because I just can’t do a team of the decade and not have Gus on it somewhere.
Left Hander: Scott Downs
From: 2005-2006. 280 G, 15-13, 16 SV, 137 ERA+
Left Hander: Brain Tallett
From: 2006-2009. 180G, 13-15, 0 SV, 101 ERA+
The Jays have featured 22 LOOGYS over the decade, it seemed somehow to be many many more. Downs and Tallett dominate the IP list, only Jesse Carlson also pitched over 100 Innings. There are some fine names on the rest of the list: Dan Plesac, Trever Miller, Jason Kerschener and Scott Eyre for example and of course the requisite ‘whodat’ guys – Scott Wiggins, John Bale, Dave Maurer and Eric Gunderson.
Right Hander: Justin Speier
From: 2004-2006. 185 G, 8-10, 7 SV, 145 ERA+
Right Hander: Jason Frasor
From: 2004-2009. 342 G, 19-23, 32 SV, 119 ERA+.
Frasor dominates the IP list for right handers and Speier is way ahead of the pack in ERA+. Honorable mentions to Paul Quantrill, Jeremy Accardo and Billy Koch (I have to say it had slipped my mind how effective he was for a while), and not forgetting, with a glorious 0.1 IP, Frank Menechino.
Closer:   B.J Ryan
From: 2006-2009. 155G, 5-9, 75 SV, 149 ERA+
Billy Koch actually wasn’t too far behind with 69 saves and a 133 ERA+. After that we have the Accardo’s, Frasor’s and Downs’ and then we’re quickly into Aquilino Lopez and Cliff Pollitte territory. 23 guys managed at least one save, including Pedro Borbon, Dan Plesac, Jeff Tam, Terry Adams, Kerry Ligtenberg and Shawn Camp.

You know, this team would win a lot of games, and probably still miss the playoffs.

Posted by Gwyn on Monday, January 04 2010 @ 09:25 AM EST.

Jays Team of the decade | 57 comments | Create New Account

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

Mike Green - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 10:18 AM EST (#210718) #

I agree with all the choices (Adam Lind might be your DH). I do think that this team would make the playoffs easily in the AL East and would probably win the division outright. Basically, you take the Jays of May 2009 and add a useful left-fielder, a big bat and some pitching support for Doc.

whiterasta80 - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 10:54 AM EST (#210719) #

I doubt Lind qualifies as a DH yet. Ditto for Benji Molina behind the plate or I'd have placed him ahead of Zaunny.

To me this list is depressing.

For one thing, that team stinks even if you took every one one of those guys in their prime, they'd still be in a dogfight to beat most of the Yankee teams of the decade and they'd have no chance against a Yanks/Sox team of the decade.

Also, most of these guys never played together which I guess is indicative of how bad our organization was in the 00's. I bet if you look back at the "team of the decade" from any successful organization that you could link about 20 of a 25 man roster to one team. You build success by keeping a core of talent together. The best I could do was 12 for the Jays and that team was missing a 1B, a DH, a shortstop, a leftfielder and 2 starters.

Dan Daoust - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 10:54 AM EST (#210720) #

One word: sobering.

christaylor - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 11:40 AM EST (#210721) #

The team would make the playoffs unless the versions of Hill 08, Ryan 09, Lind pre-09, Halladay 04, Wells 07... et cetera show up.

What this teams says to me is how average the Jays teams have been as all decade teams from the big two in the division would look a lot scarier, but then they'd be a lot scarier on the payroll side too.

I was curious so I went an put together an all-suck decade team (using a loose minimum PA 325 / SP 65 IP requirements but the more suck-age the better, I think) here are your Terrible Blue Jays of the Naughts:

C: Darrin Fletcher (2001) - .226/.274/.353
1B: Lyle Overbay (2007) - .240/.315/.391
2B: Homer Bush (2000) - .215/.271/.253
SS: Jogn McDonald (2007) - .251/.279/.333
3B: Eric Hinske (2004) - .246/.312/.375
LF: Reed Johnson (2004) - .270/.320/.380
CF: Vernon Wells (2007) - .245/.304/.402
RF: Alex Rios (2005) - .262/.306/.397
DH: Josh Phelps (2004) - .237/.296/.417

SP: Roy Halladay (2000) - 10.64, 2.20, 58
SP: John Towers (2006) - 8.42, 1.77, 54
SP: Pat Hentgen (2004) - 6.95, 1.64, 69
SP: Steve Parris - (2002) - 5.97, 1.74, 78
SP: Ted Lilly (2005) - 5.56, 1.52, 80

RP: BJ Ryan (2009) - 6.53, 1.89, 66
RP: Pedro Borbon (2000) - 6.48, 1.99, 78
RP: Tanyon Sturtze (2003) -5.94, 1.68, 79

Thanks for the memories... I think.

Twitchy - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 11:40 AM EST (#210722) #

The decade is 2001-2010. There's no such thing as Year Zero. So I guess David Wells & Stewart's best years are out.

That being said it's nearly criminal leaving McGowan off the list. Litsch had a WAR of 3.3 while McGowan had 3.9 WAR in 2007 alone, and 6.3 for the "decade".
Glaus edges out Rolen in WAR, but it's by a small amount (both had 6.8 over 2 years but Rolen was traded midseason).
Surprisingly Johnson beats out Cat & Lind in LF for WAR for the "decade". I figured it would have been Cat, but looks like Reed was the best.

ayjackson - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 11:44 AM EST (#210723) #

The decade is 2001-2010. There's no such thing as Year Zero.

I guess you didn't exist until you turned 1.

AWeb - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 11:49 AM EST (#210724) #

For a decade-best team, that's a terrible starting rotation. Just awful. Halladay has more starts than the rest of the rotation combined. I might replace Wells with Lilly - one year wasn't enough for position players. But neither Litsch or Marcum has even made 30 starts in a year. Lots of guys had good years, but rarely for 30+ starts, and rarely was it ever repeated.

Also, Wells, Towers, Chacin (Towers and Chacin in the same year) and Carpenter are the only non-Halladay Jays to manage 200 IP in the last ten years, so I guess my first reaction to declaring Wells' season th best non-Halladay of the decade ("That can't be true!") is probably wrong. Yeesh. Any guesses who the next one to reach the 200 IP will be?

"Blue Jays peak" performance, this team easily rolls through the division, I think.

Hill OPS+ of 117 (2009)
Zaun OPS+ of 112 (2006)
Delgado OPS+ of 181 (2000)
Rolen at OPS+ 117 (2009)
Stewart at 118 (2000)
Wells at 132 (2003)
Rios at 122 (2007)
Scutaro at 111 (2009)
Fullmer at 120 (2000)

Yankees last year were a team OPS+ 122, this team beats that out (only slightly of course). Also the defense on this team would be great, and the pitching would be league-best. But taking best career year seems like even more of a cheat with pitching.

Kind of depressing that the best offensive years from a consistently good team for an entire decade barely beats the 2009 Yankees, who featured a series of past their prime players. I'm thinking decade best Yankee team performance would near an average OPS+ of 150.

christaylor - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 11:54 AM EST (#210725) #

"The decade is 2001-2010. There's no such thing as Year Zero."

This is incorrect on two levels. 1) Would you start the Nineties in 1991? 2) A decade is a set of ten years and can be started with arbitrary end points. One can easily talk about the Jays decade of winning (1983-1993).

To Rant: the "no year zero" is/was a silly meme perpetuated by Seinfeld. Years and counting them is a very arbitrary process. One can imagine a point in time where there are 0 years, 0 months and 4 days. Calendars vary within (Gregorian/Julian switch anyone?) and among cultures. It all boils down to trips around the sun. That said, I'll end this rant with the hope that the 4708 year of the tiger Blue Jays have a good season when the New Year begins on Feb 10th. Damn Seinfeld. The only good thing about it was the reunion they had on Curb.

AWeb - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 01:08 PM EST (#210726) #

One can easily talk about the Jays decade of winning (1983-1993).

I agree with your point in general, but I must insist that a decade remain only 10 years long, not 11. Decades are arbitrary as compared to centuries, and it's certainly easier to define them as starting in the "zero" years than ending in them. No one is calling this the 201st decade (AD). However...the 20th century ended with the year 2000, not 1999, and I don't care who says otherwise :)

Oh, and I took a quick look at the Yankees decade team and figured a peak performance year OPS+ of around 146 as a team. But their defense wouldn't be all that great...so there's that. Jeter provided "only" a 132 OPS+, second worst to Cano at 2B (128).

Twitchy - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 01:16 PM EST (#210727) #

Mike Green - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 01:19 PM EST (#210728) #

Decade best Yankee offensive performance would probably not equal 130 OPS+, let alone 150. The outfield of Sheffield, Williams and Matsui would be under 130, as would Posada, Cano and Jeter. The team defence would be poor, and the pitching only so-so (save for Rivera). It would probably be a better club than the decade-best Jay club, but the margin wouldn't be much.

Incidentally, Edwin Encarnacion apparently got into the holiday spirit in explosive fashion.

Matthew E - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 01:29 PM EST (#210729) #

I look at it like this.

The first decade of the 21st century runs from 2001-2010.

The decade known as the '00s runs from 2000-2009.

Who could have a problem with that?

Thomas - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 01:33 PM EST (#210730) #

If you're going by a calendar date the decade is from 2001-2010. If you're going by the past 10 years, than yeah, it's 2000-2009. But that's not the calendar decade.

We're not trying to make it difficult. You're the one trying to play mathematical "gotcha." First of all, there is no rule that decades and centuries have to correspond. A decade is a period of a ten years. It doesn't a period of ten years where ten consecutive decades correspond to a mathematical century.

Secondly, it doesn't make any practical cultural sense to have the decade end in 2010. Decades are commonly referred to as the "eighties", the "nineties" and so forth. Unless you want to do away with that terminology entirely, it makes sense for decades to run from ---0 to ---9. Those of us who enjoy using that shorthand will continue to refer to decades this way.

Moe - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 01:42 PM EST (#210732) #

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 20th century is from 1901-2000. So looking back, the 1st century is year 1-100. If you agree with this premise, and it's really hard to disagree at this point, you'll notice that the last digit in the beginning of a decade/century is 1, and the last number in the end of the decade is a 0. 2001-2010.

If you're going by a calendar date the decade is from 2001-2010. If you're going by the past 10 years, than yeah, it's 2000-2009. But that's not the calendar decade.

It's really not as difficult as you guys make it out to be.

You are correct, but no one cares about such details when you have a column to write. In fact, we had this debate in 1999 big time. Does the new millenium start on Jan 1, 2000 or 2001? It's 2001, but again nobody cared. Why wait a year to make money on big milleniums parties?

From Wikipedia:
Year zero is not used in the widely used Gregorian calendar, nor in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. Under those systems, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1.

Hence we are now in the last year of the first decade of the 3rd millenium. But if like, you you define a decade by the last two digits (which most people find intuitive); then we can talk about the decade (10 years) with the 00s in the year number.

Anyways, the list above just strikes me again what a revolving door the Jays 3rd was. We all know about the trouble at SS and C, but these are hard to fill positions (at a high level anyways), but not 3rd. And I don't think people felt that there was an issue at 3rd at most times. We always had our 3rd baseman for the future, or at least for the foreseeable future: Hinske, Koskie, Glaus, Rolen, Encarnacion.

Ski - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 02:04 PM EST (#210733) #

Since I don't have anywhere to put this - Tom Cheek is in as one of the three vote-in finalists for the Frick Award. I really hope this is his year!

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/article/2010-01-04/nuxhall-doucet-cheek-voted-frick-award-finalists

Cincinnati's Joe Nuxhall, Montreal's Jacques Doucet and Toronto's Tom Cheek have been voted finalists for baseball broadcasting's Ford Frick Award for the second straight year.

Cheek received 5,930 votes, Doucet 5,183 and Nuxhall 1,363, the Hall of Fame said Monday.

AWeb - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 02:09 PM EST (#210735) #

Decade best Yankee offensive performance would probably not equal 130 OPS+, let alone 150. The outfield of Sheffield, Williams and Matsui would be under 130, as would Posada, Cano and Jeter.

Taking their best Yankee years from the past decade (2000-2009), Posada posted a 153, Jeter a 132, Sheffield and Williams 141, Matsui a 137. Remember, these are the best single years, like I did with the Jays team above. Throw in Giambi at first, Rodriguez and third, Cano, and Johnson at DH (so as not to pick Giambi again), it's above of 145 averaged. Now, their decade Yankee averages would be a different story, but their best? Untouchable top-end talent. Yankee fans don't appreciate what a good season is sometimes, since they expect (reasonably in a lot of cases) HoF level seasons from every position. But yeah, the defense sucks.

Oh, and what Matthew E said about decade definitions....I agree.

christaylor - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 02:11 PM EST (#210736) #

"Anyways, the list above just strikes me again what a revolving door the Jays 3rd was."

Historically it makes sense. Hinske didn't pan out, Koskie was a bad signing, Glaus and then Rolen wanted out of town/off turf. That's the way it went down.

It could have just as easily gone the way of Hill being slotted in at 3B where he covered for Koskie and the money spent on Glaus' spent elsewhere.

Thomas - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 02:46 PM EST (#210739) #

Since I don't have anywhere to put this - Tom Cheek is in as one of the three vote-in finalists for the Frick Award. I really hope this is his year!

Great news. I'm cautiously optimistic that this may be the year that the long-overdue Cheek gets the Award.

lexomatic - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 03:41 PM EST (#210741) #

-I'd put Mcgowan in the long-relief role, seeing as he actually pitched in relief. Chacin may have been interesting but he had one year of usefulness, and Mcgowan has already had more (2). I will concede that Chacin's 1 good year is better by era+, I would still rather have Mcgowan on my roster than Chacin (your own biases aside.)
-I also think it's ridiculous to limit the DH position to games played at DH, because "anybody can be a DH". Seriously. Why not just stick the best remaining bat of the decade at DH? Lind at 1400 PAs of 118 OPS+ compared to 1100 PAs of 110 OPS+ and a bonus in positional flexibilty to spell people it's a no-brainer for team construction. Thomas only had the 1 year.

The tricky thing is when you balance the all-decade teams around the league... for players who played on multiple teams, who gets to play where (I always favored playing time over better season because otherwise you have teams that have players with great season who can't play and teams who have replacement players or guys who didn't play a full season manning a positoin.)

lexomatic - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 03:51 PM EST (#210742) #

I would also consider Catalanotto over Hinske as UT. He may have only played the OF in Toronto but he had experience at 3rd/2nd and 1B. He was also a more consistent hitter, and more valuable by OPS+ over his career. As a bench player I give him a slight edge. Hinske again only played well during his rookie year, and didn't play much at positions other than 3b until after leaving the Jays(and only in his last year as a Jay). I think it's important, that the history of playing a position exists.

Mick Doherty - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 04:45 PM EST (#210743) #

Cat actually also played 1B as a Jay, though briefly.

Last year with MIL, he appeared at 2B for the first time since 2001. Woo-hoo, Frankie.

Jim - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 08:12 PM EST (#210746) #

The 2009 Yankees had a better player at every position in the lineup (1b would be the only tossup) and a comparable pitching staff. Maybe they could have tracked down the Red Sox for the WC, but this team wouldn't have won the division this year.

#2JBrumfield - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 08:28 PM EST (#210747) #

How can Chris Latham be left out? Jeff Tam got a save? Apparently, he did. He also tried to eat his jersey in Boston, didn't he? More seriously, no love for Crash Myers' '03 season?

Alberto Castillo arguably had the worst bat for a catcher in Jays franchise history in 2000 and 2001 and outfielder Brian Simmons, part of the brutal Mike Sirotka-David Wells trade, is someone else I'd like to forget about from this decade.

I do remember Luis Figueroa. The #46 on the back of his jersey seemed to cover his entire back. He's listed as 5-foot-9 in Baseball Reference. Yeah, and Craig Grebeck is 6-foot-10! He's 5-7 actually and his last season in Toronto was in 2000 before finishing up with Boston in '01.

More useless trivia - Grebeck originally wore #2 in Spring Training when he joined the Jays in '98. He decided to wear #4 instead when the regular season began. That allowed the immortal Tom Evans to wear #2 in '98. The next guy to wear my favourite number was.........Jacob Brumfield! His sleeveless '99 jersey with #2 was the first game worn jersey I bought and that was the jersey I wore for the infamous Batter's Box Baseball In Canada Day event that was held in Toronto in March of 2004. That led to me posting here with my nickname, some minor league ramblings, a Batter's Box roster spot and a place in your hearts! :D Yikes! Imagine if Grebeck stuck with #2. No game worn jersey, no nickname and no spot on the BB roster. That's Grebeck's impact here on this very website. Who knew?

Anyways, let's hope this decade will feature some playoff appearances and a World Series trophy or ten!!

Mike Green - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 08:38 PM EST (#210748) #

Whoa, Jim. Melky Cabrera, 2009 better than Vernon Wells over his career? No. Sabathia was not as good as Halladay. Burnett, 2009 was not as good as Burnett 2006-08. Pettitte, 2009 was not as good as Wells, 2000. Joba, 2009, Sergio Mitre, 2009 and Wang, 2009 were nowhere near Marcum or Litsch. The Yankees 2009 Pythagorean W-L was 95-67. They were a very good club and with the top 3 starters and Mariano healthy for the playoffs a devastating club in that context. But, over a season, they were not a historically great club due to the shallowness of their pitching staff.

Jim - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 09:02 PM EST (#210750) #

I said the pitching staff was comparable. Of course cherry picking one good season from Wells and the above average starts you got from a couple of guys before they blew their arms out you are going to be able to come up with a better pitching staff. You had to take 3 starters who didn't even make 60 starts individually in the entire decade to come up with a better rotation.

You are right, Wells is better then Cabrera... but not by much anymore. The rest of the lineup save for Delgado is behind the Yankees. Jeter had 9 seasons in the decade that were better than any season the Jays got from a SS. A-Rod put up 10 straight seasons that are light years ahead of anything the Jays got out of 3rd base save for Rolen's 2009. Except when he was hurt in 2008, Posada in every year put up a better year then any season the Jays got at catcher. Cano is younger then Hill and according to the numbers he's been a better offensive player, he had a better years at 23 and 24 then Hill had at age 27. Teixeira plays everyday, gets raves for his defense and hasn't put up an OPS+ below 126 since his rookie year.

I'd put the Yankees lineup advantage comfortably ahead of the Jays pitching advantage. The all-decade team wouldn't get destroyed, but when you are debating your all-decade team (and try to use 1 and 2 season contributions to build your case) against their current roster do you really deserve the benefit of the doubt?

jabalong - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 10:42 PM EST (#210755) #

"The decade is 2001-2010. There's no such thing as Year Zero.

I guess you didn't exist until you turned 1."

Well said.

In mathematical terms, the decade might start at 1, but in practical terms that's not how it works culturally. No one's going to argue that 2000 belongs in a decade called the "nineties" - clearly it's only the years ending in a ninety number (ie, 1990-99). So following on, the decades are 2000-09, 2010-19, etc. End of story.

jabalong - Monday, January 04 2010 @ 10:44 PM EST (#210756) #

Back to the matter at hand, I agree with the earlier comments that this best of decade team list for the Jays is sobering and depressing. To my mind this team doesn't make the playoffs, which is as good an indictment as any as to the suffering that was the last decade for Jays fans.

TamRa - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 04:32 AM EST (#210758) #

On the matter at hand, I decided to check out the negativistic opinions. I did make one alteration though- since I have to take single seasons I dispensed with the arbitrary game limits and took the position leader cited on BR.

I admit up-front that ERA+ and OPS+ don't account for defense but since FanGraphs WAR valuations only go back to 2002 this will have to do, subjective opinions f defense used to break any ties.

This is a team made up of the best player at each position for the Jays in the previous decade (in an individual year) compared to the team that actually made the playoffs in this decade (and yes, while it is not technically a decade in the formal sense, it is a decade in the sense in which people colloquially say "the '80's" so it's too nitpicky to worry about it) using OPS+ totals for the starting nine and ERA+ totals for the Five most active starters and six most active relievers.

Yes, before you say it I understand these stats are not designed to be totaled but since I can't get a collective OPS+ and ERA+ for players spread over different teams, this will have to do for a quick and dirty comparison. It gives you a pretty good idea of the relative quality of the 20 players in question and seldom will the bench players and shuttle riders make up the gaps here.

1B: Delgado/2000 - 181
2B: Hill/2009 - 117
SS: Scutaro/2009 - 111
3B: Rolen/2009 - 124 (as a Jay)*
LF - Stewart/2000 - 118
CF: Wells/2003 - 132
RF: Rios/2007 - 122
DH: Lind/2009 - 144
C: Myers/2003 - 125

*Quibble here in favor of Glaus 2006 if you like, since Rolen wasn't here all year - but Glaus in 2006 was at 122 just like Rolen for all of 2009 and Rolen brings the better leather.

That's a total from the starting nine of 1174. And yes, I can put together a bench that features above average offense everywhere except 2B (average) and SS

Rotation:

Halladay/2002 - 158 (unless you want to count the shortened season, 2005, which was 184)
Marcum/2008 - 125
Wells/2000 - 123
Towers/2005 - 120
Burnett/2007 - 119
Lilly/2004 - 119
Chacin/2005 - 119
Litsch/2008 - 118

Taking the top 5 there, it comes to 645

Pen:

Ryan/2006 - 333
Downs/2008 - 237
Accardo/2007 - 209
Janssen/2007 - 190
Carlson/2008 - 188
Frasor - 2009 - 173 or
Speier/2005 - 173

Total for six relievers - 1230

Playoff teams who went instead of the Jays ...
(team and totals for the same three sets - Jays totals first for easy reference)

1174 - 645 - 1230

2009 Yankees - 1175 - 426 (for 4 starters with more than 10 starts) - 839
2009 Red Sox - 977 - 557 - 957
2008 Rays - 941 - 670 - 924
2008 Red Sox - 1108 - 598 - 934
2007 Red Sox - 1006 - 567 - 1218
2007 Yankees - 1106 - 530 - 727
2006 Yankees - 1082 - 509 - 766
2006 Tigers - 947 - 670 - 878
2005 Yankees - 1130 - 467 - 778
2005 Red Sox - 1109 - 502 - 627
2004 Yankees - 1051 - 560 - 772
2004 Red Sox - 988 - 586 - 1123
2003 Yankees - 1103 - 529 - 804
2003 Red Sox - 1133 - 604 - 654
2002 Yankees - 1063 - 586 - 763
2002 Angels - 976 - 582 - 940
2001 Yankees - 970 - 557 - 813
2001 Athletics - 1064 - 579 - 782
2000 Yankees - 939 - 501 - 794
2000 Mariners - 967 - 500 - 702

So, for those keeping score at home, that's 20 playoff teams, all but three of which won 95 games, and among them only ONE edged the collective offense of our theoretical jays team - by ONE point.

The Rotation of our team finished behind only three of those teams (670 to 645) and only one of the twenty bullpens got within the same neighborhood as our Jays bullpen.

Not only would this Jays team have made the playoffs, it would have done so EVERY YEAR.

(Also, just for gravy, if you sum the three numbers (which wrecks the idea of balance and makes the bullpen too influential but still) the collective Jays are the runnaway winner compared to each and every one of those playoff teams, several of whom won over 100 games)

So let's put to bed the nonsensical blather about the best Jays of the decade still not having been a playoff worthy team. Yes, this team is not exactly like the one in the OP but even that team runs 1001 - 591 - 759

Even though it's an unfair comparison to compare 3,4, or more year spreads to a single individual season - that would rank them ahead of seven of those playoff teams on offense and 17 of the rotations and 4 of the bullpens....the notion that the OP describes a BAD team is ludicrous.

(Oh, and since I'm sure someone will argue that if you took the best lineup of the Yanks or Red Sox for the decade it would be a better team - yes, It would, but that's not the point being stated by those who say "that's not a playoff team")

Jim - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 07:19 AM EST (#210760) #

So let's put to bed the nonsensical blather about the best Jays of the decade still not having been a playoff worthy team. Yes, this team is not exactly like the one in the OP but even that team runs 1001 - 591 - 759

You might want to read the nonsensical blather a bit closer. No one said if you took the absolute best season the Jays got at every position during the decade and had those seasons together they wouldn't make the playoffs. We were comparing what the overall contributions of the players were over the decade not their single season peak. Other then that wonderful work proving something wrong that no one even began to suggest.

AWeb - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 07:51 AM EST (#210761) #

I think obviously the best single season Jays team makes the playoffs and wins the division, but I think what many of us are noting is that the team isn't all that impressive, even cherry-picking the best. Curious, I took a quick look at what could be the worst AL team of the last ten years, the Royals. I'll try and find the best single seasons from who would appear to be the all-decade Royals team.

C - John Buck five year starter, OPS+ of 92.
1B - Sweeney, OPS+ of 148
2B - Grudzielanek, OPS+ of 103
SS - Berroa, OPS+ of 101
3B - Randa, OPS+ 104 or Teahan at 122
LF - Ibanez at 122
CF - Beltran at 132
RF - Dye (?) at 135

SP - Greinke 2009 ERA+ of 205
SP - Meche 2007 ERA+ of 124
Suppan , 2001 at ERA+ of 111
Darrell May, 2003, ERA+ of 130
Bannister 2007 at 118

BP - eh, any team can find 5-7 good single season BP guys, even awful teams.

Aside from this being a scary view into a horrible franchise (2005 and 2006, not a single pitcher who made more than 2 starts managed an ERA+ of 100), I think this team make the playoffs pretty easily, and there are possibly better choices to be made. The team OPS+ would be around 118, the ERA+ around 137 (+ bullpen, so even higher). The turnover at positions is frightening which meant picking some single season guys like Dye - I'd have to follow the team a lot more closely to pick a true "team of the decade", but this is probably close.

Actually, this exercise made me feel better about the Jays. Everyone should pick a lousy team and see how bad things could be. Pirates? Orioles? Who's the worst best-case scenario?

TamRa - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 01:31 PM EST (#210768) #

You might want to read the nonsensical blather a bit closer. No one said if you took the absolute best season the Jays got at every position during the decade and had those seasons together they wouldn't make the playoffs. We were comparing what the overall contributions of the players were over the decade not their single season peak. Other then that wonderful work proving something wrong that no one even began to suggest.

Which is a nonsensical premise.

The teams which made the playoffs were made up of individual seasons.

comparing what a player did over 3,4 ....6...years to what any individual playoff team did is such a silly comparison as to be impossible to disprove.

It is the sort of nonsense that arises out of emotion and not reason.

But even so, I addressed that. Even if one takes the OPS+ and ERA+ listed in the OP the team doesn't compare all that unfavorably to the teams which made the playoffs, especially in the pitching department.

TamRa - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 01:34 PM EST (#210769) #

I think obviously the best single season Jays team makes the playoffs and wins the division, but I think what many of us are noting is that the team isn't all that impressive, even cherry-picking the best.

Isn't all that impressive?

An offense equal to the 2009 Yankees, a starting staff among the top five, and a bullpen that kicks the ass of the competition is "not all that impressive"?

John Northey - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 02:36 PM EST (#210770) #

Always fun to play with all-time and all-decade teams. For a tough exercise try to make a great Jay team out of their worst seasons, be it sub-500, last place teams (1997 the last of those), or sub-400 (1995/1978/1981/1977/1978).

From those horrid sub-400 teams you find...
CA: Alan Ashby 111 OPS+ (1978 298 PA)
1B: John Mayberry* 124 OPS+ (1979) John Olerud 111 OPS+ (1995)
2B: Roberto Alomar 109 OPS+ (1995)
3B: Roy Howell* 127 OPS+ (1977)
SS: Alfredo Griffin 89 OPS+ (1979)
LF:Otto Velez 148 OPS+ (1979 325 PA, 120's in other seasons)
CF: Bob Bailor 100 OPS+ (1977)
RF: Shawn Green 115 OPS+ (1995)
DH: Rico Carty 128 OPS+ (1978) Paul Molitor 101 OPS+ (1995)

SP: Al Leiter 130 ERA+ (1995)
SP: Dave Stieb 124 ERA+ (1981 183 2/3 IP in just 25 starts)
SP: Tom Underwood* 117 ERA+ (1979)
SP: Dave Lemanczyk 116 ERA+ (1979)
SP: Jerry Garvin* 100 ERA+ (1977)
SP: Luis Leal 108 ERA+ (1981 129 2/3 IP)

RP: Victor Cruz 230 ERA+ (1978)
RP: Roy Lee Jackson 151 ERA+ (1981)
RP: Tony Castillo* 147 ERA+ (1995)
RP: Joey McLaughlin 139 ERA+ (1981)
RP: Tom Buskey 126 ERA+ (1979)
RP: Pete Vuckovich 121 ERA+ (1977)
RP: Tom Murphy 115 ERA+ (1977)

Not much on the bench, but that staff is nothing to sneeze at. Interesting that 2 of the 3 strike affected years (1995 only slightly) produced 2 of the worst Jay teams ever. Catcher only had the one guy crack 100 OPS+ over 250 PA that I noticed, while SS was also a black hole most of the time in those really bad years. Still, not bad quality for 5 really, really, really bad seasons.

Matthew E - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 02:40 PM EST (#210771) #

Neat idea. I would have piled 2004 in there with those other dog years, but I'm not sure how much it would have changed anything.

John Northey - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 02:55 PM EST (#210772) #

True enough, 2004 was forgettable, but I wanted the worst of the worst which is sub-400 (64 or fewer wins in a full 162 game schedule). You really gotta stink to make that list.

In reverse, trying to make the worst team possible with a minimum of 300 PA or 162 IP for starting pitchers 50 IP for relievers would be interesting. Both for those bad years and for the peak seasons. 1985 is the only 600 season the Jays have had, but 550+ winning percentages came in 1985/1987/1992/1993/1991 (best to 'worst' - 90 wins needed for this group). 1987 being the only non-playoff team in that group with 1989 being one of many 89 win seasons (549 winning percentage, also enjoyed in 1983 and 1984).

In 1985 only Damaso Garcia qualifies as bad with his 82 OPS+ in the leadoff slot at 2B while Ron Musselman was the only pitcher to qualify under 100 for ERA+ (96) although Luis Leal's 74 in 67 IP as a starter deserves mention. Anyone up for that challenge?

Moe - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 03:00 PM EST (#210773) #

I would have piled 2004 in there with those other dog years, but I'm not sure how much it would have changed anything.

Actually it would:
1B: Delado - OPS+ 129
CF: Wells - OPS+ 105

You could also use F. Menechino for the bench: OPS+ 131 (276 PA)

And Ted Lilly had a good year: ERA+ 119 w/ 200 IPs

John Northey - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 05:19 PM EST (#210776) #

It is amazing how many good performances can occur in otherwise horrid years. Just for fun I checked the 1962 Mets and saw they had a 118 OPS+ out of the other Frank Thomas in LF, Richie Ashburn provided a 122 in the outfield, however for the entire staff only one pitcher, Galen Cisco, had an ERA+ at or above 100 (127 over 19 1/3 IP after a 61 for the Red Sox over most of the season). It would be his only time over 100 in any one stop during any one year.

Detroit in 2003 lost 119 games but had a 144 OPS+ out of the DH Dmitri Young. Again pitching did them in with just one reliever cracking 100 for ERA+ over more than 18 IP. Ick, just one guy with 10+ starts had an ERA+ above 79 (a 92 for Nate Cornejo). At least we shouldn't be subject to that kind of ugly pitching in 2010.

AWeb - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 07:02 PM EST (#210778) #

Isn't all that impressive?

An offense equal to the 2009 Yankees, a starting staff among the top five, and a bullpen that kicks the ass of the competition is "not all that impressive"?

Well no, it's not. I did the same with the Royals, and they could put together a respectable, playoff caliber team (easily makes the playoffs with that pitching, just as the Jays best would), out of the dregs of that franchise's worst decade. It would be remarkable if any major league team couldn't take ten consecutive years and find 9 good position years and five starting pitching years. And anyone can put together 50 good innings and make the BP (not that the Jays haven't done better than most, but still) all-decade team (see Carlson, 2008).

Jim - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 07:37 PM EST (#210779) #

The teams which made the playoffs were made up of individual seasons.

Yeah that all happened.... AT THE SAME TIME. Oooooohhhh if you take the best season that the Jays got at every position over the course of a decade you could put together a team that would be marginally better then the 2009 Yankees. When are they going to fit Riccardi for his bust in Cooperstown?

Jim - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 07:39 PM EST (#210780) #

"not all that impressive"

Exactly, it's not even remotely impressive. If you take our best player from 2001 and our best player from 2003 and our best player from 2005 .... we'll kick your rear ends!. Oh and we aren't even just taking the player... we are going to take their absolute best 162 game stretch.

Jim - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 07:58 PM EST (#210781) #

It really can be done for anyone, about 5 minutes on the Padres and they have a 120 win juggernaut.

C-Mike Piazza -122
1b- Adrian Gonzalez - 166
2b - Mark Loretta - 138
SS- Kahlil Greene - 112
3b - Phil Nevin - 158
LF - Ryan Klesko - 152
CF - Jody Gerut -132
RF - Brian Giles- 142
Bench Mike Cameron -122
Bench - Scott Hairston - 146
Bench - Kyle Blanks - 140
Bench - Mark Kotsay - 122
SP - Jake Peavy -172
SP - Chris Young -126
SP - Woody Williams -114
SP - Brian Tollberg - 119
SP - Brian Lawrence 116
RP - Mike Adams -152
RP - Akinori Otsuka - 222
RP - Heath Bell - 192
RP - Cla Meredith - 380
CL - Trevor Hoffman - 263

vw_fan17 - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 08:04 PM EST (#210782) #

Wow, I guess I must have really watched a lot of baseball in 1983, because whenever I think of Roy Lee Jackson or Joey "Gas" McLaughlin, I think of "coming in to blow the lead and lose the game". Strangely enough, except for '83, they had >100 ERA+ ratings in all their seasons for the Jays..

TamRa - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 08:23 PM EST (#210783) #

It would be remarkable if any major league team couldn't take ten consecutive years and find 9 good position years and five starting pitching years.

Then whence cometh all the "that team couldn't even make the playoffs" chatter about the OP?

I don't entierly disagree with the point you are making - but I think both your post and mine stand in contrast to all that blather.

In the end, it all comes down to how they play the games in ways not easily measured by the basic stats, if measurable at all.

for instance, the 2006 Jays had an OPS+ of 108 and an ERA+ of 104 and won 86 games.

the 2006 Yankees had an OPS+ of 111, and an ERA+ of 102 - and won 97.

What's up with that?

Damned if I know.

Jim - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 08:33 PM EST (#210784) #

Then whence cometh all the "that team couldn't even make the playoffs" chatter about the OP?

It cometh because if you consider the roster like we were and take the players overall contribution in the decade and not their best season they aren't better then the 2009 Yankees. I'll grant there are seasons they would make the playoffs and they would have had a shot of winning the Wild Card in 2009 but when your all decade team would struggle to make the playoffs in some seasons it tells you two things: The Yankees and Red Sox have ridiculous rosters at this point and the Jays didn't have much of a decade.

christaylor - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 09:52 PM EST (#210786) #

"The Yankees and Red Sox have ridiculous rosters at this point and the Jays didn't have much of a decade."

I'm not sure how an impossible and non-existent entity such as an "all-decade" tells me these two things, but I do know them to be true. Insert any other team from the AL east in place of "Jays" in your comment and it still holds true.

The 2009 Yankees are a proof one thing only - a half a billion dollars can switch a team that ought to be on a downward trend with aged and injured vets and no viable young players around quickly. I'm not complaining, heck, I enjoy watching the Yankees. I like dynasties. However, when commenting that the Jays "didn't have much of a decade" or that predicting an imaginary team wouldn't make the playoffs - context might be an important thing to consider.

Jim - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 10:10 PM EST (#210788) #

. Insert any other team from the AL east in place of "Jays" in your comment and it still holds true.

Well.. Tampa did go to a World Series. Is it better to go to the WS once and lose 90 games 8 times or have the Blue Jays' decade? I guess that's a matter of personal preference. I guess I'd take either over Baltimore's decade.

Jim - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 10:20 PM EST (#210789) #

I'm just dealing with the facts. Everyone knows that the Blue Jays, Orioles and Rays have a 'unique' challenge. Every single thing that is written or discussed about those franchises is within the context of their special circumstances. I don't think that any reasonable person expects the Blue Jays to compete year in and year out for the playoffs.

To me the decade wasn't even frustrating because of the lack of playoff appearances, it was just the meandering pointless path that led the team to this point. Imagine if Halladay had done what 95% of major league players would have done and bolted the first chance he had to be a free agent? Can you even imagine what the last half decade would have felt like?

The 2010 team could lose 90+ games but AA has made this franchise much more interesting in the past few months. I know I'm probably in a overall minority, but I'd rather lose 95 games and at least have a vision of where things are headed then have a .520 roster and hope that everything breaks right and you slip into the wild card.

christaylor - Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 10:58 PM EST (#210790) #

"To me the decade wasn't even frustrating because of the lack of playoff appearances, it was just the meandering pointless path that led the team to this point."

The Jays in each year from 2006 to 2008 had a better chance of making the playoffs than most pundits and prognosticators gave them - the team was set and the roster changed little; the plan was on the field. After 2005, JP played a hand that could be summed up as "build a good team and hope things break right". I'm not sure what .520 roster is on paper and there's the truism "the games are played on the field" but there's no way the Jays of the second half of the decade could not be described as good. There's no way they could be described as lucky.

Hoping everything breaks right was not a bad strategy to *try* given the resources committed by ownership and the AL east. Didn't work. Next. As per your previous post, I'd rather take the Jays decade than the Rays. The Rays window is already done (or almost done) and the WS didn't bring in the fans to support a revenue stream to improve the team with FA and re-signing home-grown players. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point -- so much internet bile has been spilled on JP era that it seems pointless now. It has all been said.

"The 2010 team could lose 90+ games but AA has made this franchise much more interesting in the past few months."

We can agree to agree on the interesting point but the AA's approach hints that he understands the team can't be Rays terrible either in single season futility or their run of futility. AA has already mentioned getting an innings eater. SS/C are at least as good as in 2009. The prospects obtained are close to being ML ready (with the exception of D'naraud). I wouldn't be surprised if the Jays are in 3rd in 2011 nor last in 2010.

TamRa - Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 02:40 AM EST (#210800) #

but when your all decade team would struggle to make the playoffs in some seasons it tells you two things:

Again - the team I described is better than EVERY team that made the playoffs (in a slot the Jays were eligible for) in the decade.

The Yankees and Red Sox have ridiculous rosters at this point

Which is a bit of business widely understood to be out of our hands. And will continue to be, Tampa's fluke notwithstanding.

and the Jays didn't have much of a decade.

Any decade without a playoff apperance is, by defnintion, "not much of a decade"

Jim - Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 07:20 AM EST (#210803) #

Again - the team I described is better than EVERY team that made the playoffs (in a slot the Jays were eligible for) in the decade.

I don't know why you don't get this.... but no one has said that they wouldn't. We discussed it in a different fashion and weren't considering the roster the same way that you were. I'm not sure why you felt the need to change our argument and then continue to tell us that we were wrong even though no one disagreed with you. The fact that the roster the way you defined it made the playoffs means nothing. Everyone can put together a roster that would win under your rules. In the immortal words of Derrick Coleman... whoopty-damn-doo.

Jim - Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 07:31 AM EST (#210804) #

The Jays in each year from 2006 to 2008 had a better chance of making the playoffs than most pundits and prognosticators gave them - the team was set and the roster changed little; the plan was on the field.

Granting that the Jays had little luck over that era and the games are played on the field... they never had better then the third roster in the division going into the season and never finished within 10 games of winning the division.

In fact the only time they have finished within single digits of a playoff spot was 2006 when they closed 12-5 and Detroit dumped their last 5 games and they finished 8 out of the Wild Card.

ayjackson - Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 11:10 AM EST (#210810) #

I'm a patient guy.....but for the life of me, I'll never understand how two guys can have the time, patience and determination argue like this over the internet. I've never seen anyone win an internet argument, yet Will and Jim make it a monthly occurence.

After assertion, argument and rebuttle, further discussion should be banned.

I'd invite Jim to pursue Will on his own turf, but since I frequent that blog, too, I'm not sure I'd be any happier.

Mike Green - Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 12:08 PM EST (#210812) #

I once did a hearing many years ago. My client was in so-so shape at the beginning of the hearing. He was questioned by six people, and the decision-maker had poor control of the proceedings, so he was questioned, cross-examined, re-examined, re-cross-examined, re-re-examined...By the end of it, he was a complete mess, and I wasn't feeling so good myself.

Is it any coincidence that "butt" is at the heart of "rebuttal"? Actually, it makes a halfway decent crytpic clue "Response to behind inside real thing (8)".

For myself, I don't mind a lengthier discussion here, as long as the tone is kept civil. There does a come a point, though, when not much is being achieved.

christaylor - Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 12:36 PM EST (#210814) #

I'm not quite sure what the statement, "they never had better then the third roster in the division going into the season" means exactly... it is an evaluation of an evaluation that has the benefit of more information/history. There's the problem of the big two's players being consistently over-rated prior to the season. Evaluating rosters prior to the season is often comes down to matters of taste. Those Jays teams had more than their fair share of players that seemed clearly better than those on the other two rosters. Sure from 06-08 I would have bet prior to the season the Jays would finish 3rd every year, but I'd have lost that bet twice.

Talking in terms of games out makes the degree of luck seem larger than it really is... The pythag is a nice toy for looking at the degree of luckiness of a team, of course and any of the 06-08 teams could have been made ten games better by scoring or preventing a total of 100 runs over the entire season. Just over half a run a game turns a good but unlucky 2008 Jays team from a pythag playoff team of 93 wins to the greatest (pythag) Jays team ever.

A strikeout here a, sac fly there... and one of the "good-not-great era" teams makes the playoffs. JP lost that bet. He was a schmuck. He said dumb things on live radio. I'm glad he's gone, but he was right when he said one thing about (some) of his teams, he built good ones.

John Northey - Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 01:24 PM EST (#210816) #

Since mid-1995 the Jays have been very depressing (the Cone deal) so it isn't exactly a decade thing.

Still, for 2000/2001 we had Ash trying desperately to save his skin with a team that wasn't good enough and a trade that pretty much defined the era (David Wells for Mike Sirotka). In fact, Ash's career was bookmarked by two horrid deals, first David Cone for Marty Janzen then the Sirotka trade. JP's era could be defined by comments from the Hudson 'pimp' comment to the many Halladay trade/no trade comments with the good ol' "it isn't a lie if I know the truth" bit in the middle.

Hrm. Wonder how the Ash era all-stars would do vs the JP era all-stars?

TamRa - Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 03:48 PM EST (#210826) #

I'm not sure why you felt the need to change our argument

Because the team as described in the OP, with a ton of respect to the poster, is an unfair comparison to other teams taken one season at a time.

I suppose if I wanted to do even more work I could take the best team of Yankees or Red Sox using their average number over their whole career with that team for the decade - hell I might yet do it just to see how it plays out

BUT

Any individual playoff spot isn't decided by what a player does over 4 or 5 years but what he did THAT year.

It's not a fair comparison to compare what a player like Hill (for instance) did over 3 or 4 seasons to what a player like Cano (for instance) did in the ONE playoff season under comparison.

I changed the terms because the terms were changed by the poor-mouthing and false comparisons.

TamRa - Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 09:38 PM EST (#210842) #

NOTE: This post is not intended as a continuation of any previous argument, but rather the following up on a thought which occured earlier which seemed a worthwhile pursuit.

---------------------------------------

Ok, I did the Yankees and Red Sox on very similar criteria to the OP. the modifications are these:

*hitters appear in at least 200 games, the majority of which are at the position listed here

*starting pitchers have at least 300 IP, 60% as a starter

*relief pitchers have at least 15 IP, 80% in relief

(the idea being to eliminate players who were only on the team for one year)

also, because of the difficulty of combining different stats sets to get an OPS/ERA+ - I only included one stint with a team. Thus, for instance, Andy Pettitte's number represent his first stint in NY, not both of those in this decade (which results in a better figure for him)

Finally, I dispensed with the bench and the spot starter as invalid comparisons since you end up with players who were actually starters on the bench which skews the numbers.

I'm going to sort them by position instead of team for direct comparisons:

Catchers:
Posada (2000-2009) - 129
Varitek (2000-2009) - 99
Zaun (2004-2008) - 97

Clear winner here.

1B:
Delgado (2000-2004) - 154
Giambi (2002-2008) - 143
Youklis (2006-2009) - 124

Pretty clear ranking here too.

2B:
Soriano (2000-2003) - 114
Pedroia (2006-2009) - 111
Hill (2005-2009) - 102

Allowing for Soriano's (lack of) defense and Hills concussion...this is close to a push.

SS:
Garciaparra (2000-2003) - 133
Jeter (2000-2009) - 121
Scutaro (2008-2009) - 100

Similar to 1B - clear hierarchy.

3B:
Rodriguez (2004-2009) - 152
Glaus (2006-2007) - 121
Lowell (2006-2009) - 110

ditto

LF:
Ramirez (2001-2007) - 157* <this doesn't include his partial 2008, I don't know how to make BR do that.
Stewart (2000-2002) - 116* same as above
Damon (2006-2009 - 114

Similar situation to the catchers

CF:
Williams (2000-2005) - 119
Damon (2002-2005) - 108
Wells (2000-2009) - 107

likewise but a much smaller spread

RF:
Sheffield (2004-2006) - 135
Drew (2007-2009) - 124
Rios 2004-2009) - 105

Clear rankings

DH:
Ortiz (2003-2009) - 145
Matsui (2003-2009) -124
Lind (2006-2009) - 118

Matsui technically violates the position restriction but the Yanks shuffled Damon, Shef, Giambi and Matsui through the DH job so much that it doesn't seem unfair to do this. Ortiz clearly much better than the other two.

totals:

Yankess = 1151
Red Sox = 1111
Blue Jays - 1020

SP:

Martinez (2000-2004) - 189
Halladay (2000-2009) - 133 (take away 2000 and it goes up to 144
Clemens (2000-2003) - 118

Lester (2006-2009) - 128
Mussina (2001-2008) - 114
Litsch (2007-2009)- 113

Compare Litsch and Mussina and you get a clear illustration why this kind of multi-year comparison is so flawed.

Schilling (2004-2007) - 121
Pettitte (2000-2003) - 114
Burnett (2006-2008) - 111

Beckett (2006-2009) - 116
Marcum (2005-2008) - 111
Hernandez (2000-2004) - 111

Lowe (2002-2004) - 115 <only his years as a starter
Chacin (2004-2007) - 108
Wang (2005-2009) - 107

Boston kicks ass in the SP catagory

Totals:
Red Sox = 669
Blue Jays = 576
Yankees = 561

'Pen:
Papelbon (2006-2009) - 254
Rivera (2000-2009) - 214
Ryan (2006-2009) - 149

Gordon (2004-2005) - 184
Speier (2004-2006) - 145
Foulke (2004-2006) - 127

Timlin (2003-2008) - 125
Frasor (2004-2009) - 119
Mendoza (2000-2001) -117

Okajima (2007-2009) - 172
Stanton (2000-2002) - 143
Downs (2005-2009) - 137

Lopez (2006-2009) - 142
Choate (2000-2003) - 102
Tallett (2006-2009) - 101

Non-closer total:

Red Sox = 566
Yankees = 546
Blue Jays = 502

If this comparisons were to be believed, Boston's dominance in pitching more than makes up for coming in second on offense, and the Jays and Yankees have fairly similar pitching results but the Jays fall to third because they are far behind (an average of 14.55 points per position) on offense.

Still, given that the average offense should total about 900 points, it's not like it's a bad team - just one that faces staggering competition.

Jays Team of the decade | 57 comments | Create New Account

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