Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Yesterday, the Roster looked at the Jay offence, and this morning, it was the pitching and defence. It is time for some Friday afternoon fun. We asked the Roster to supply their win predictions, and keys to the season in a sentence or two.




Mike Green- 88 wins. The keys to the season are the development of Marcum and Janssen and the health of Halladay and Burnett. Luck is indeed the residue of design, and it would have helped had the middle infield been addressed more constructively.

Pistol: I guessing 825 runs and 750 runs allowed - that gets the Jays to 89 wins. I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that the key to the season will be the health of the top players and the emergence of quality starters at the backend of the rotation ala Chacin and Towers in 2005.

Magpie - My 848 scored and 737 allowed suggests 92-70, and it's time they caught a break from Pythagoras. Just a couple of games, so 94-68, first place.

Matthew E - 86 wins, and here's how it's going to happen: there will be some injuries, and those injuries will be blamed for the team not doing any better... but it won't really be because of the injuries; it'll be because that's about how good the team is. (If one of the young starting pitchers puts it all together, forget everything I just said.)

Dave Till - I don't have a clear feel for how this team is going to perform. The roster is much less settled than it's been in past years, and there are several players that could get better or might not. I'm going to go with 85 to 90 wins and second place. But it could swing either way: the Jays' offense could score a ton of runs, or the pitching could completely implode. 95+ wins and under .500 are both real possibilities.

#2JBrumfield - Pitching wise, I feel the rotation will be a lot better thanks to improved quality and health. Somebody will come out of nowhere like Pat Hentgen in '93 and win close to 15 games (read Casey Janssen or even more off the wall, Dustin McGowan). I think J.P. will find a way to beef up the bullpen through the trade route. Offensively, I expect Reed Johnson and Troy Glaus to drop off from last year but that should be more than offset by Frank Thomas, Aaron Hill, and Alex Rios. Mark me down for 91 wins.

Gerry - I guess I am the pessimist at 85 wins.  I am worried about injuries to players like Troy Glaus and Frank Thomas and the effect of almost full time play by Greg Zaun and Royce Clayton.

2007 Blue Jays Pre-Season Roundtable- Part 3- The Bottom Line | 40 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
timpinder - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 12:27 PM EDT (#164951) #
I'm guessing around 92 wins, just barely enough to win the wildcard.  The offense will be great and the bullpen will be better than many expect, but the back end of the rotation will flop early on, costing the Jays some wins.  McGowan will have his break-out year and eventually he'll be called up where he'll pitch like a true #2 or #3 starter, which will be the catalyst that takes the Jays to the next level.  That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it.  (I also expect to see Janssen replace Chacin in the rotation very early in the year, which will be a benefit to the team).
Chuck - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 02:04 PM EDT (#164957) #
Over at BP, Clay Davenport's simulations have the Jays at 79-83.
greenfrog - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 02:05 PM EDT (#164958) #
Based on the current roster, I'm guessing about 84-88 wins (with injuries determining how things shake out). Of course, I hope that everything falls into place, career years abound, and the team surpasses all expectations.

Realistically, I think the team needs to face up to a couple of needs before it makes the playoffs. Adding two (not necessarily all) of the following pieces would help: a "big arm" (as Blair puts it) in the rotation, legit setup man, quality shortstop (league-average offense and defense), and deeper bench.
Mike Green - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 02:37 PM EDT (#164960) #
I didn't quite follow the inputs on Davenport's simulation.  In the notes, it indicates that current wins, losses and expected winning percentages are taken from the Adjusted Standings Report.  When I clicked on the Adjusted Standings report, it showed the Jays with 87 wins.  Maybe I am missing something.

For what it's worth, the Davenport simulation showed the Yankees with an average of 92 wins, the Red Sox with 91, the Jays with 79, the D-Rays with 76 and the Orioles with 74.  All of these figures are within 2 games of my projection except the Jays.  Royce Clayton isn't great, but he's not really a step down from John McDonald.

It would be interesting to see the average runs scored and runs allowed and individual player performances to see where the discrepancies are.  I suspect that the runs scored is the major issue.  Many simulations will regress the 2006 performance of Rios, Hill, Johnson, Thomas, Overbay and even Wells towards the mean significantly. 




AWeb - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 03:13 PM EDT (#164961) #
Many simulations will regress the 2006 performance of Rios, Hill, Johnson, Thomas, Overbay and even Wells towards the mean significantly.

That's exactly why objective projection systems aren't going to like the Jays. Throw in Halladay, Burnett, Chacin, and Ohka all presumably being projected to miss significant time. Towers and Zambrano were awful in 2006 on top of that.

The downside for this team, with Thomas injured (playing maybe 80 games), and everyone else performing at career average levels (which would be average, at best, across the board); with pitching injuries playing a prominent role and no youngsters stepping up, is pretty catastrophic. Only three players, aside from Thomas (160),  have a career OPS+ above 100, Glaus (120), Wells (112), and Overbay (116). Look at Yankee career OPS+ numbers...122, 116, 123, 145, 137, 104, 126, 150 (everyone but first base). That's what the Jays are up against.

This is the best/only way the Jays can currently win, however. Take lots of medium-high risk moves and hope enough pay off. I think they will this year, spring training has proven to be quite an optimistic time.
Leigh - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 03:24 PM EDT (#164963) #
Many simulations will regress the 2006 performance of Rios, Hill, Johnson, Thomas, Overbay and even Wells towards the mean significantly. 

That's exactly it, Mike.

BP has:
Rios going from .302/.349/.516 to .280/.332/.457
Johnson going from .317/.388/.477 to .275/.329/.420
Overbay going from .312/.372/.508 to .291/.366/.476
Wells going from .303/.357/.542 to .286/.348/.498

It also has a modest improvement for Hill and a modest decline for Thomas.
Pistol - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#164965) #
They show the details of the PECOTA projections which I seem to remember coming in at 80-82 (if you subscribe).  Looking at those numbers nothing looked too out of line to me, but 80 wins seems low.

But even though it projects 79 to 80 wins the playoff odds were 18%, which seems to be a reasonable number to me.

I'd be interesting to see how much the odds would increase if the Jays played in the NL, especially the NL Central.

Mike Green - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 03:43 PM EDT (#164966) #
I have a couple of big problems with those numbers.  I don't agree at all with the Rios numbers- the extent to which one regresses power should take into account anthropomorphic data as well as GB/FB and pull rates, and I doubt that they have done so.  I also don't agree with the Johnson numbers, but more importantly, if Johnson hits like that, he'll be moved into a platoon role with Lind quite quickly, and his expected performance will jump significantly.  Lind's projection is miles better than that. 

Last year, PECOTA projected Johnson as a below replacement level hitter and Hill as a near replacement level hitter.  I took issue with it then.   I agree that Johnson's 2006 performance ought to be regressed signficantly, but in my view, Marcel does a better job of it.

Matthew E - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 03:47 PM EDT (#164967) #
Even better, Joe Sheehan at Prospectus has the Jays coming in at 76-86. Which I think is just short of laughable. This year's team is going to be worse than the '05 Jays? Girlfriend, please.
John Northey - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 04:13 PM EDT (#164969) #
All projections should be taken with a big grain of salt. The PECOTA adjusted version isn't live yet, and a system which has the Devil Rays at 13% odds of making the playoffs has to be a bit screwed up.

Noteworthy from BP:
Last year the Reds were 3 1/2 games out in the end, this year their odds of making the playoffs are listed as the 3rd lowest in the majors.

Least likely to make the playoffs according to BP...
Royals - 3.1%
Nationals - 3.8%
Reds - 2.4%
White Sox - 8.0%
Orioles - 9.9%

Uh huh. The White Sox have lower odds of making the playoffs than either the Orioles or Devil Rays. Riiiight. So better odds of the Orioles putting it together better than at least two of the Yankees/Red Sox/Blue Jays than of the White Sox being better than two of the Twins/Cleveland/Tigers. That just does not pass the sniff test, let along the D-Rays being even higher odds (13.4%).

For more fun with Chicago, they have lower listed odds of winning the AL Central than all but 2 other ML teams have of winning their divisions - Washington and the Royals are lower than the Sox 4.75%

Now, the White Sox could stink on ice this year. I know I'm not a big fan. However, to say only the Nationals and Royals have a tougher road to winning their division sounds very wrong to me. The Tigers have the plexiglass principle against them, Cleveland has looked good on paper for years but never seems to win as much as they should, and the Twins have a cheap owner who would gladly cut payroll given a chance (of course, the Sox owner was known for that in the past but seems to have stopped for now). If I was betting on that division I'd go with Cleveland (luck gods gotta be on their side sometime) but the Sox would be higher than the Tigers and neck in neck with the Twins.

BP is proud of their projections but I've yet to be convinced they are any better than just using a basic method based on the favorite toy (3x last year, 2x 2 years ago, 1x 3 years ago and divide total by 6) and ML projections of minor league performance.
Michael - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 04:47 PM EDT (#164973) #
I think the jays will be in the high end of the 80-85 win bucket this year.  I'd set the over/under line at 83.5.

IF everyone stays healthy and IF we get as many (career good years minue career bad years) that we got last year, then I'd think we'd be around 10 wins better than that.

jmoney - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT (#164977) #
I subscribed to BP for two years and let it expire this winter. Mainly because of Joe Sheehan. I just can't stand the guy or his columns anymore. (No it isn't because he's hard on the Jays either)
Chuck - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 05:28 PM EDT (#164979) #

I don't agree at all with the Rios numbers- the extent to which one regresses power should take into account anthropomorphic data as well as GB/FB and pull rates, and I doubt that they have done so.

Mike, whoever wrote the Blue Jay player comments in the book said of Rios: "It should be fairly easy for Mickey Brantley to show him videotape [...] in which case he'll soundly beat his PECOTA projection". That most of Rios' pre-injury homeruns were hit to either LF or CF was specifically noted.

So, at least one BP staffer agrees with most here about the overly pessimistic nature of the Rios forecast, even if that doesn't change the inputs that were used in Davenport's simulation.

This specific discussion of PECOTAs aside, I found this year's book to be the weakest in years. The team write-ups smacked of the old Elias Analyst write-ups, and that's no compliment. Back when Elias was pushing hard to scoop some of Bill James' market share, they provided an interesting and valuable repository of numbers available nowhere else (alone making the books worthwhile purchases) and then mined those numbers to drive commentary and insight which was wholely uninteresting, focused as it was on odd and largely irrelevant statistical trends and observations.

I miss Gary Huckaby, and the longer he has been gone, the more BP is less than what it was. His heart and soul, to say nothing of his intellect, is clearly absent in the current incarnation of BP.

That said, of course they now find themselves on the NY Times bestseller list. But that's just the way the world works, doesn't it? Bestseller lists, record sales and Nielsen ratings are never in sync with the producers' peak, always lagging a few years behind.

 

Thomas - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 06:11 PM EDT (#164980) #
For further evidence of Mr. Sheehan's severe dislike of this year's Blue Jays squad, see this online roundtable with several notable baseball bloggers:

10. Which manager will be first to no longer be managing team (whether fired, retired, resigned or otherwise not managing) in 2007?

Sheehan: John Gibbons, Blue Jays.

This is hard, with seven new managers who you'd figure will make it through the year. I'll go with Gibbons, as the Jays will likely disappoint and he's got some black marks on his record.

16. Which team will suffer the biggest decline, measured in decrease in total victories?

Sheehan: Blue Jays.

And it won't be close.



Mylegacy - Friday, March 30 2007 @ 09:34 PM EDT (#164985) #

Ninety six wins. Bank on it. Bet on it.

Would I lie to my friends at DaBox?

Dadey - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 01:04 AM EDT (#164988) #

I concur with Gerry.  My biggest concern is Zaun's ability to perform 1700 squats during the season (the contingencies for such are stomach turning).  I am more worried about the pen than I am the starters.  I know it's only spring training and it's succulent smelling fruit has proven rotten in the past, but Ohka looks strong.  I'm good for 92 wins.

Anders - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 02:18 AM EDT (#164989) #
"16. Which team will suffer the biggest decline, measured in decrease in total victories?

Sheehan: Blue Jays.
And it won't be close"

See, I don't even get this. The Jays won 87 games last year. As we've seen, there are always a couple of teams that lose a lot more games the previous  year - the Cards lost 17 more in 2006 than they did in 2005, in 2005 the Dodgers lost 22 more, in 2004 Arizona lost 33 more games, etc. So how far do the Jays have to go to not even being close to losing way more than everyone else? 15 games? 20 games? 30 games? Is there anyone who legitimately believes that the Jays win total could be in the 60's?
timpinder - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 10:44 AM EDT (#164991) #

I could believe it.  (If Glaus has knee surgery, the Big Hurt has foot surgery, Halladay gets hit by a line-drive and breaks his leg, Burnett's arm falls off, Rios hits like he did in 2004, Johnson hits like he did in 2004, Adam Lind pulls a Josh Phelps, and Ryan misses 4 months with a sore back)

Flex - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 11:24 AM EDT (#164994) #
The roster has been announced: Josh "Short-Leash" Towers is the 5th starter, Zambrano is in the bullpen.
greenfrog - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 11:44 AM EDT (#164995) #
Sheehan: Blue Jays.
And it won't be close"

Predicting the Jays in this category isn't so outrageous (although I think the "and it won't be close" is gratuitous). Pretty much all NL teams had low overall win totals (except for the Mets), making it possible that the team with the biggest decline will come out of the AL. And the Jays do have some risks (potentially weak 3-5 starters, injury risks, potential bullpen problems). But there are also reasons for optimism: the team is basically healthy, has a core of talented young veterans, and appears to have more pitching depth than we thought a couple of months ago.

I think Washington (71-91) may suffer the biggest decline. They've lost Soriano and have next to no starting pitching. They'll be tempted to trade their closer (Cordero) - who may be sitting idly in the 'pen quite a bit - for prospects this summer. They could lose 110 games - a 19-game difference. Minnesota could also decline significantly without Liriano. Their 2-5 starters are Bonser, Ortiz, Silva and Ponson. Not good.
Leigh - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#164996) #
"16. Which team will suffer the biggest decline, measured in decrease in total victories?

Sheehan: Blue Jays.
And it won't be close"

This is such vitriolic hyperbole that even Sheehan himself does not believe it.  Over the past couple of days, Sheehan has been revealing his rankings of the 30 teams for this season and his projected records for those teams.  So far, he has released the bottom 20.

Of those bottom 20, he has

Minnesota with 81 wins (the Twins won 96 last year, so according to Sheehan, they will drop by 15).
Washington with 57 wins (14 down from last season's 71).
Detroit with 84 wins (11 down from last season's 95).
Toronto with 76 wins (11 down from last season's 87).
LAA with 80 wins (9 down from last season's 89).
Cincinnati with 72 wins (8 down from last season's 80).
Florida with 71 wins (7 down from last season's 78).

So he has three teams going down by at least as much as the Jays, and three more teams right behind.  Yeah, not even close eh.
timpinder - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 12:40 PM EDT (#164997) #
I like the roster and having Janssen and Marcum in the bullpen will be nice.  However, I disagree with the decision to designate Rosario.  They could have placed Rosario AND Accardo in the bullpen and sent Zambrano to start in AAA to build up his arm strength, or they could have sent Accardo (who has another option year) to AAA and kept Rosario in the bullpen with Zambrano.  Unless the Jays have a good trade lined up I think this was a very poor decision.  Rosario was good in spring training this year, dominant in AAA last year, and he has good stuff.  If Accardo had been dominant and Rosario had been brutal, then it would be easier to swallow, but Rosario was as good as Accardo this spring and he's out of options.  It doesn't make sense to me right now.
AWeb - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#164999) #
Zambrano is a tough call for the Jays. From everything I read when they signed Zambrano in the first place, it sounded it was thought he might be able to be a mid-season rotation upgrade for them, but he's way ahead of schedule for a tommy john surgery. It's possible they don't think it's a good idea to stretch him out more right now.  I think long-relief is a good fit for him, and he can take over the spot-start role from Downs (leaving the only non-closer lefty in the pen). Or Janssen could, or Marcum...wait, they seem to have a lot of possible starters in the bullpen. I guess this solves the logjam at AAA, and there's usually something to "mediocre starter=good reliever". But this would seemingly make not just towers' leash short, but possibly Chacin's and Ohka's as well. I really hope the Jays don't spend so much time shuffling relievers up and down from AAA this year...

I'd agree that the Rosario situation has been poorly done, unless the Jays have a trade lined up for him already. And even then, they've killed any leverage they had. It seems unlikely that Rosario wouldn't be claimed off waivers by someone. Sometimes though, you just have to give up on a player and move on. The organization has been watching him for years, so if they don't think he's got the right stuff, well, I guess they might be right.

Paul D - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 01:14 PM EDT (#165000) #
Jorge Cantu has been sent to the minors by the D Rays.

And Cantu hopes to be traded.  He had a .699 OPS last year, but was at .800 in 2005 and 04 (in only 50 games in 04).

Would/should the Jays be interested, and is trading in the division a bad idea?  Rosario plus a AA pitcher?

VBF - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 01:24 PM EDT (#165001) #
It is Cantu with the ridiculously bad glove, right? Assuming this, I'd stay clear of him. There's no guarantee his offense will improve and his defense is below average. He might be better offensively than Rohnson Claydonaldith but not enough to make me confident that he won't be a liability when those ground balls come his way.


Matthew E - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 02:00 PM EDT (#165002) #
The other thing Sheehan has said is that the Jays are being foolish in not recognizing that the only way they'll have any success is with Lind in the lineup and McGowan (who he says is, right now, the Jays' third-best starting pitcher) in the rotation.

To which I'd say, I'd like Lind to learn which hand his glove goes on before handing him an everyday job, and I'd like McGowan to succeed at anything before I call him up from Syracuse.

ayjackson - Saturday, March 31 2007 @ 03:07 PM EDT (#165006) #
Dice-K had a Hamel-esque line in his final tune up.  82 pitches in 4 innings worked.  7K, 2H, 4W, 2R.
Jordan - Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 03:52 PM EDT (#165054) #

If the Blue Jays spend most of the year with essentially the 25-man roster they've announced, this is approximately an 85-win, third-place team. A serious upgrade in the rotation and/or at shortstop by mid-season is going to be necessary, unless a whole bunch of good things happen -- Janssen and Marcum both enter the rotation early and flourish, Rios returns to his pre-staph 2006 pace, and Zambrano eventually provides the high-leverage relief innings they were expecting from Brandon League.

Even with an upgrade -- and it's not clear to me what minor-league jewels the Jays can offer down the stretch to acquire a difference-maker -- I think that 95 wins, which looks to me like a realistic target for playoff admittance, is less than a 25% likelihood. As always with my pessimism, I look forward to being wrong.

timpinder - Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 04:35 PM EDT (#165057) #

Jordan,

I hope you're wrong too, but I agree with you.  To make the playoffs I think the Jays need two young starting pitchers to break-out (my money's on McGowan and Janssen), and for one of the bullpen arms to step up to be that 8th inning guy.  My money was on Rosario, but that's not going to happen now, so hopefully Accardo can reach his potential (he looked really good during the second half of spring training), or League can get back to 2006 form.  If this team remains the same throughout the course of the year my guess is that they'll be above .500 but back to 3rd place.  But I can't see that happening, one or two of Janssen, Marcum, McGowan, Zambrano or even possible Purcey or Romero, who have been having great springs, will step up and save the Jays from Chacin and Ohka at some point this year.

Matthew E - Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 04:41 PM EDT (#165058) #
I checked out Prospectus's predictions today, and it's shocking how many of them have the Jays finishing fourth. Of thirteen ballots, one had the Jays finishing second,  seven had them finishing third, and five had them in fourth place (usually behind the Devil Rays).

Now, I know that third place is a strong possibility, and a lower finish is... well, it's not completely out of the question... but I'm getting sick of people dismissing this team. The time will come when the Jays make a lot of people eat their words, and I hope it comes as soon as this year. Because that's a possibility too, and not just a theoretical one.
Ron - Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 07:02 PM EDT (#165070) #
I love the optimism around here but the truth is, the Jays will likely hover around .500 all season.

You have to remember the Jays got career years out of Johnson, Overbay, Rios, Zaun, Hill, League, and Ryan last year. Wells and Glaus were also very productive. The Jays lost a good starter in Ted Lilly. The starting pitching is a huge question mark, the SS position is a sinkhole, and the bench looks terrible. Oh yeah every other team within the division improved.

I predict the Jays will win 83 games and finish in 3rd place. But if Doc suffers a serious injury, I can see this team winning 70-75 wins.
Rob - Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 10:16 PM EDT (#165079) #
I'll grant you a couple of your points there, Ron, but if you really think that Aaron Hill's career year is .291/.349/.386 with 6 homers and 5 steals and that Brandon League will never contribute more than three solid months in one year, then I can't help you.
Jonny German - Sunday, April 01 2007 @ 10:38 PM EDT (#165081) #
It's tough being Ron, Rob. Don't you see? He's on the list! His gift is
that knows the truth about the 2007 season before it's even begun! As
much as he loves our optimism, he's obligated to try to shoot it down. It's for
our own good.
2007 Blue Jays Pre-Season Roundtable- Part 3- The Bottom Line | 40 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.