Dave - I think the hitters will bounce back.
And I think that Berg, Cash, etc weren't on the 1993 or 1994 teams.
:)

Fixed. I just felt like living in the past this morning. :-)

I don't think JP could have seen this coming. The only complaint I have is that JP could have seen that the Jays were a one-dimensional team, but that was done by design. This season is a good example of what happens when you gear your team to be a home run team. As they say, power can be fleeting but speed never takes a day off. If the Jays bats aren't booming, there is very little they can do to compensate. The Jays need a better balanced team if they hope to compete.

Looking at Hinske's numbers, I guess you can say the hamate problem wasn't the big problem after all. He's just gone in the tank. And he'll continue to stay there until he learns to go the other way with pitchers and swing at better pitches. That guy gets himself out so much..... I've never seen a major leaguer give away that many at bats without being sent to the minors.

As they say, power can be fleeting but speed never takes a day off.

I've never understood that saying at all. Ever twisted an ankle or pulled a hamstring? Both power and speed are based on muscles (albeit a different set), both of which routinely get tired or injured.

As they say, power can be fleeting but speed never takes a day off.

Of course if you have speed it's only useful if you're on base, which isn't something that's slump-proof.

I don't think there was reason to expect this team to be below average offensively at the beginning of the year, but that expectation was there as soon as you started seeing guys like Berg, Clark, Gomez, etc. playing at traditionally offensive positions. Where is the power going to come from? How can you win without power when you don't have a stellar pitching staff and defence?

Werth is showing in LA that he has value as a platoon player making little money. Of course as soon as the Jays trade him away they are left with very sparse depth at the major league level eventhough Frasor helped a lot. You can't ignore how weak that left the Jays in terms of real ability on the outfield corners. Until they called up Rios they looked woeful and even he is still probably a year or two away from being the complete player he can be.

And I'll say it one more time in case people aren't sick of it already. Reed Johnson, however much you like his makeup and intensity and his ability to sometimes bunt is not an everyday corner player. Not even close. At the beginning of the year I wanted the Jays to platoon him with Cat to give themselves a super leadoff hitter but then they needed someone to play right field I guess. That's one area that should have been addressed in the off-season if they knew Werth was eventually going to be out of the picture.

You have to take a hard look at every position on this team for next year and evaluate how much better or worse they are than league average at each position. How much better or worse than division average at each position. The Jays are carrying a heck of a lot of average and replacement level players on the roster right now and I think if Delgado leaves they'll have to make wholesale changes throughout the lineup if they don't want to end up in the cellar again next year. Tampa will only get better offensively as Upton, Crawford, and Baldelli continue to grow while Huff will still be Huff for the foreseeable future. Baltimore still has untapped potential and an MVP at shortstop.

I don't necessarily agree with the saying either, because as Moffatt stated, injuries (see Shannon Stewart) can really put a crimp in it. But I think it would help to have a couple more speedsters on the roster to go along with Johnson and Rios, although neither would be considered "speedsters." I love watching Johnson drop those bunts down every once in a while and leg it out to start a rally.

I love watching Johnson drop those bunts down every once in a while and leg it out to start a rally.

Me too. I also love watching a guy going first-to-third on a single to right. Although not a classic speedster, Hinske is pretty good at it. Come to think of it, I don't think the Jays have anyone who is really bad at it, save Delgado and the catchers.

One thought from me on this: The only reason Cat was available on the cheap was because of his injury history. I'm not comfortable writing his injuries off as something that couldn't have been predicted. Not sure how anyone else feels on this subject.

http://me.woot.net
Something just occurred to me: could this season be Hinske's real 2nd year slump? He spent a good portion of last season out of action and/or hurt and/or recuperating from injury. The league's pitchers still got to adjust to him over the first two years, but he wasn't adjusting back since he was just trying to fix himself up.

If this is true, now that he's (apparently) back to normal, maybe he can go through the standard adjustment to the league that everyone needs to make.

The numbers don't look so off to me, excepting Delgado and Phelps.

Vernon is off from last year a bit, but his 2004 is respectable and probably more indicative of his true abilities.

Which to me says the Jays are a one trick pony - they go as Delgado goes. He sucks, the Jays suck. He rocks, and the Jays rock.

If he leaves (I still am predicting he stays), his loss could potentially be made up for by Rios and Gross and the RH portion of the DH platoon.

And, a decison has to be made about Hinske. I am worried that what we are seeing is what we get in the future. I said this is another thread, if Woody doesn't pan out at SS or we acqurie a FA, could he platoon with Hinske at 3rd?

Which to me says the Jays are a one trick pony - they go as Delgado goes. He sucks, the Jays suck. He rocks, and the Jays rock.

Then why are the Jays losing so many games in August while Delgado has been hitting very well?

I think what discussions like this ultimately come down to is the unexpected regression of Josh Phelps and Eric Hinske. When JP espoused his 5-year plan, I think he had those 2 penciled in as at worst solid starters, at best (and not unrealistically) eventual All-Stars. Delgado's year has been due to injury and some phenomenal struggles in the beginning of the year, but that only affects 2004, for which not a whole lot was expected anyways. Ditto (somewhat) to Wells, but I think he will still be a very, very good player for a few more years for the Jays. I think the major concern for this organization is finding an answer to fill the gap between the actual and expected performance of Phelps and Hinske for the next few years. Young, cheap hitters with 40-HR potential and young, cheap 3B will All-Star potential don't come along very often. I think we were caught with fool's gold. Trying to find players to give us what we thought Phelps and Hinske would be at their age and price will be very, very difficult. Crozier seems like a fine player, but it is highly doubtful he will ever produce what we thought Phelps would eventually do back when we were dreaming in 2002. Hinske could turn it around, but it is becoming difficult for even those with rose-colored glasses to see the 2002 Hinske in 2005. The question as to whether JP should have seen it coming in regards to Hinske and Phelps is a difficult question. As usual, the answer probably lies somewhere in between definitely yes or no and I'm not sure how much is his fault and how much is bad luck. There is no question though that it is his responsibility and his job to find a solution to the Jays' huge power void. Here's hoping JP can pull it off, but it very tough to be optimistic these days.

I’m glad JP drafted 2 shortstops (you’d think the odds are at least one pans out) because if you look around the league where so many weak players are employed as starters at this position (aside from the stars; there seems to be little middle ground) finding a quality player in this position can be a big bonus for a team. Not to mention for the simple fact we need to replace our own who I’m so tired of ragging on that I constructed a rather lengthy post dedicated to the subject, but thought it to be such a lost cause that it wasn’t even worth the disparaging analysis at this point.

On another entirely random note, Jack Cust’s (currently with the O’s I believe) name popped into my head the other day. I was wondering if he would be (or have been) worth taking a flier on if the opportunity presented itself to JP, but after looking into it I realized that he did clear waivers at one point so I guess it wasn’t something that was deemed worthwhile or if it was, wasn’t feasible given the structure of our roster at the time. Also, the sudden dearth of power in our organization wasn’t as foreseeable as it is now, but wouldn’t a similar type of player be on the wish list at this point or are those power aspirations pinned solely on the more multi dimensional Crozier?

Robert, I think the "Season from Hell" is wearing heavy on the boys. Now they are just pressing too hard. I do not claim to be a pychiatrist, but I think it's in everyone's heads now.

The Jays seem to be the reverse of the Indians, not just record wise. The Indians play with a cockiness and swagger(that drives me nuts). The way Sabbathia was arguing with the umps, his stupid freaking crooked hat, Belliard has a look on his face like he thinks he the reincarnation of Joe Morgan, Broussard when he hits the Grand Salami is pumping his fists.

But that cockiness leads to a belief that they can win. That was something the Jays had last year. Last year, the Jays had an attitude that if they were down by 3 or more late in the game, they could still put up a 5 spot. That belief in themselves is waht seems to be missing this year.

Which is why I like what Gibbons is doing, he is showing faith in those who have been struggling. Some have responded (like O-Dog), some have not (Hinske) and some have been hit and miss (like Ligtenberg.

Could JP have foreseen this terrible offensive season? As good as the offense was last year, the performance was unique in that the lineup was mixed between 2 extremes: career seasons & dissapointing ones. Delgado, Wells, Johnson & Myers all had seasons beyond expectation - with Delgado and Wells driving the offensive primarily. The other half of the lineup & the core of the "young nucleus": Hinske, Phelps, Hudson & Woodward all slumped compared to their 2002 seasons.

So for 2004 it was only realistic to expect some regression in performance from the "overachievers" (Delgado, Wells ...). Which meant that in order to compensate for this reduction, the whole key to the offence was to have the other half of the lineup rebound. This is exactly where the problem begins: Delgado & Wells slump early on then go down with injuries (Delgado still slumping) and the rest of lineup not only fails to improve but performs even worst then last season. This lack of production from Hinske, Phelps, Hudson & Woodward is the biggest issue. Either their talent was overvalued after 2002 OR there were major breakdowns in their development. Or maybe its a bit of both, but in any case I think JP deserves some share of the blame.

One thought from me on this: The only reason Cat was available on the cheap was because of his injury history. I'm not comfortable writing his injuries off as something that couldn't have been predicted. Not sure how anyone else feels on this subject.

I think that's a really good point. He was a gamble that paid off last year and not so much this year.

Nick: Well said. Looks like you beat me to the punch.

Regaarding Cat, weren't his previous injuries related to his back?

Maybe his current "hockey groin" is somewhat related, but to me they seem seperate issues.

Unless, you are referring to his "fragile" nature, i.e. more suspectible to injury than others.

If Cat has to compensate for a weak back by putting undue pressure on other parts of his body, injury is inevitable.

The answer to the offence is simple: OBP. We don't want Glaus we want Ricky Henderson. Cat, Berg, Woody, even Johnson take no walks. We need walks from the weaker hitters. Hustle doesn't matter cause you can't steal first.

On Wednesday, JP did mention that he fully expected there to be a regression of the offense from its #2 spot in 2003. He just didnt expect the regression to be so significant...he was expecting a league-average offense in the 5-8 range...

C.

From my perspective, the only aspect of this season that could have been predicted was that injuries to some of the position players would happen. Some of the money allocated to the bullpen could profitably have been allocated to a bat or two on the left-end of the defensive spectrum (DH/1B/corner OF); these guys are valuable in pinch-hitting roles if you get lucky and no one gets hurt and are invaluable if you don't get lucky.

A power nucleus of Wells, Delgado, Hinske and Phelps at the start of the season looked very, very good. You'd have to be an extreme pessimist to have forecast what has happened.

Vernon is off from last year a bit, but his 2004 is respectable and probably more indicative of his true abilities.

I don't quite understand why people seem to think 2003 represented Vernon's peak value as a player. He was 24 years old and had an IsoP above .200 every month except August. He didn't walk much (or at all) and still had an OPS over .900. And I repeat: He was 24! This season, missed nearly a month with an injury and came back without any rehab time in the minors. If you grant that the injury may have affected his power, and hope for a season free of flukey injuries like his, I would fully expect a return to the numbers he posted last year, perhaps even higher. I don't see why we should expect a 24 year old in his second season with all the talent in the world to regress.

I don't see why we should expect a 24 year old in his second season with all the talent in the world to regress.

It's somewhat complicated. Overall, we would not expect a 24-year-old player to regress, all things being equal. And Vernon certainly is talented. But he did have a career year, and that does normally result in regression (though less often, obviously, the younger a player is) and he was also quite a bit above average, and that also normally means some regression as well.

It's really hard to answer. The PECOTA system, for example, projected Vernon as hitting (on average) .295/.344/.506, a step back from his 2003.

COMN for the hardballtimes.com team stats. The batting stats are at the bottom. Some interesting tidbits:
11th in OBP (.327)
12th in SLG (.397)
13th in ISO (.137)
Highest G/F ratio (1.39)
14th in BA-RISP (.245!!!)
Surprisingly, they are third in pitches per plate appearance (Boston & Oakland) at 3.81. It was my view that they weren't grinding out at bats this year.
These stats blow me away. I could never have thought that they would be this bad. I'd be ecstatic if they could get halfway back to where they were last year and were mid-range in everything. I hope this year is an anomoly.

I don't think JP would go for Jack Cust. He can't play a position, and is rumoured to be a bit of a *****. JP doesn't seem to like guys like that.

And Vernon certainly is talented. But he did have a career year

I understand what you're saying, but how can you be sure it was a career year? How can you be sure that he won't be posting .550 slugging percentages for the next 10 years?

Or is it a case of "It's a career year until he proves otherwise"? I guess that makes more sense.

Tassle,

It's a career year because he'd never done that well before. ot because he'll never do that well again.

Players who do better than they ever have done generally do not get better in subsequent years, they step back to something more like their career numbers. As I said, other factors militate against this in Vernon's case, especially age. But I'm just talking about statistical generalities.

I understand what you're saying, but how can you be sure it was a career year? How can you be sure that he won't be posting .550 slugging percentages for the next 10 years?

I won't presume to answer for Craig, but I will stick in my own two cents.

When a young player makes gains as dramatic as Wells did in 2003, over 2002, history has shown that there is usually a subsequent regression. Wells' career arc is likely to be on the rise, given his age, and in 2005 he could well meet or surpass what he did in 2003, but in 2004 he figured to regress from his 2003 numbers. It was just more likely to happen than not.

Very few players have had year after year of gains until they reach their peak at 27 or 28. In fact, after a quick survey (by no means thorough), I have found just one: Jason Giambi. Every year from age 24 to age 29 he improved, without exception.

Normally I don't think much of Sports Illustrated's baseball coverage, but I recall in their preview issue they quoted an opposing scout as saying that the Jays wouldn't hit for anywhere near the same power as they did last year and that the offence was due to regress. Looks like he was right.

Yeah, sorry. When I think of career year, I automatically think of guys like Brady Anderson, with 1 year out of place over an entire career. Just the way I've been taught to view the term.

Also with Wells, his minor league numbers were not great. Everyone thought he would be terrific as a prospect (and they were right) but he was slow in coming up in the minors and had mediocre minor league stats. Combine that with how dramatically he improved and you'd say he overachived and was due for a correction.

I've been impressed with Hudson though this year.

But the Jays have a number of problems to address moving forward, but I think 1st (if not Delgado) and 3rd (if Hinske continues to flop) are the biggest issues.