Is it an upgrade?  Yes.

Is it another case of throwing money around which could be better spent elsewhere to increase the team's chances of  winning?  Yes.

Give the choice, I'd much rather have gone into the season with Everett and Scutaro than with McDonald and Eckstein. I deeply disliked the McDonald extension at the time and I'm disliking it even more now. Giving $2 million a year for two years to a defensive replacement, at the end of the season, before the market had even begun to sort itself out? And now the Jays will have to pass on the best defensive shortstop in the game and pick up crack-fillers like Scutaro and Eckstein instead, because the GM couldn't wait to give an extension to one of his favourites. Is this JP Ricciardi or Gord Ash?

Anyway ... Eckstein gets on base at a decent clip, has no power, and plays a very average shortstop for an average of 120 games a season. The offence will improve and the infield defence will suffer when he plays. And next spring, we'll go through the whole shortstop dance all over again.

2002 Felipe Lopez

2003 Chris Woodward

2004 Chris Gomez

2005 Russ Adams

2006 John McDonald

2007 Royce Clayton

2008 David Eckstein

If this front office has a plan of any kind, it's a really well-disguised one.

Just some "back of the napkin" random comments about Eckstein...

ZiPS has him projected for a 700 (350/350) OPS for the NL. The average SS last year was 750 in the NL and 710 in the AL. So even without punishing Eckstein for changing leagues, he looks as if he'll be a below average offensive shortstop in 2008. As has been noted, he's historically been a better defender than the naked eye suggests. Until last year, that is. He'll be 33 next year, so that defensive drop could very well be legit. This is what happens to shortstops (not named John McDonald) when they hit their 30's.

So, Eckstein will most likely be a below average offensive shortstop and a below average defensive shortstop. That said, this might still be a net improvement over McDonald.

Were this a one-year deal, I'd say fine. But it won't be. Eckstein is going to eventually be so bad at shortstop that his bat can't carry his glove and there's nowhere to move him, what with a guy named Hill holding down second base. And then what do you with him? He'll be a utility guy that can only really play one position.

Were the bugs in time travel worked out by now, the Jays could undo the McDonald deal, scoop Everett (a historically great defensive shortstop), try that out for a year, and then revisit the shortstop mess next season.

As it is, we may be looking at a two-head shortstop in an offense/defense platoon, where their playing time is determined by the GB/FB ratios of the starting pitchers.

As Reed Johnson is a fan favourite, Eckstein would be as well. He has the same "you can't walk me but if you hit me, that's fine" attitude. He has the small frame and the Charlie Hustle attitude. Too bad he's not 27 any more.

I really hope this does not stop JP from getting a real upgrade at SS next offseason or during the season if something nice becomes available. It would be awesome to have a SS who is actually a strength and whatever else happens I don't want Eckstein to stop us from getting one.

In essence, we are getting a pretty good leadoff hitter

No, we aren't. Eck gets on base well but his absolute lack of power means that the fewer ABs he gets, the better.

Were this a one-year deal, I'd say fine. But it won't be.

So you're saying "fine" now?

My apologies, I don't mean to be snarky, I've just been worried since I woke up this morning and read "Eckstein to the Jays" and this is the first good news I've had in hours!

Incidentally, I'm not a J.P. hater or anything, but there's a really good comment by Josh Byrnes in the BPro Quotes of the Week that perfectly applies to the Jays current situation.

"You're either rebuilding for something special, or you're on the verge of something special. To be in between is foolish."

We are most definitely in-between.

I thought the Kevin Mench item in the teaser lede of yesterday's thread might attract some attention.

Mench turns 30 in about three weeks, is just a couple of years removed from 26- and 25-homer seasons, and even though he fell a bit in OPS+ the past two years (90 and 87), his career mark is still 101. His Most-Similars include Craig Wilson, Craig Monroe and Mike Cuddyer, which I think the Jays would love to have on the bench/in the outfield.

So, any interest in Shrek? Incidentally, he needs just eight more homers to become the all-time leader in that category among Delaware-born MLBers. The top spot is currently shared by Randy Bush, John Mabry and Dave May. Elite company!

Assuming Stairs gets most of the playing time against RHP, signing Eckstein ensures that there won't be an offensive blackhole in the lineup. I'll take a .350 OBP with shaky D over a .270 OBP with great D. The fact that it's only for one year makes it even better, although there still isn't a SS anywhere in the system (other than Jackson who is half a decade away at the least) so the team will be right back trying to find Eckstein's replacement next season.

My only issue with this deal has nothing to do with Eckstein. My beef is the John McDonald signing. Now with Eckstein on board, that means McDonald is the primary middle infield back-up, while Scutaro will likely play more of a utility role while backing up Glaus. To me, that's a huge waste of resources. The Jays would have been better off with Scutaro as the primary IF back-up, with someone like Adams as the utility player (in-house), or go out and sign an Eric Hinske type. I'd be much more comfortable with Hinske backing up Glaus than Scutaro, defense be damned. I guess McDonald will be the $2 million defensive specialist.

Regardless, good signing for one year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Mench the one who lined a shot off of Doc's leg, putting him out for (practically) the whole season.....quashing the Jay's (albeit slim) playoff hopes that year?

If he does come, could we get the team to haze him by getting him to wear a leg cast for the first week of ST?

The Jays don't have a prototypical leadoff hitter, so they'll have to make do with what they have. To my mind, that's Vernon Wells. They batted him leadoff for a while last year and his walk rate blossomed (his poor BA hitting leadoff was closely tied to a lousy BABIP, and he still posted his highest OBP batting first) and he has said he's comfortable there. Follow Wells with Hill and Rios and bat Thomas cleanup. Overbay can hit fifth to break up the run of righties and Glaus bats sixth, which is just about where his skill set now merits. Put the catcher 7th, the left fielder (Johnson or, hopefully soon, Lind) 8th and Eckstein 9th. Flip Glaus and Overbay against southpaws; otherwise, that's your everyday lineup.

That's what ought to happen. What will happen is that Johnson and Eckstein will open the season batting 1-2, because John Gibbons is a traditional manager whose job is on the line and who's not going to get fired for batting the $20M centerfielder leadoff, and because JP Ricciardi actually appears to believe all that nonsense about "grit" and "spark" at the top of the lineup.

I'm growing to really dislike the term "prototypical lead-off hitter" but Eckstein beats Wells' career OBP by 20 points

ZiPS projects Eckstein to have the 4th best OBP on the team behind Rios, Glaus and Thomas.  None of those guys are lead-off options.  I'm not saying Eckstein would be a GOOD lead-off hitter.  But I don't think it would be a mistake choosing him out of the rest of the Jays lineup.

Give me a break, mouthpiece.

This is good. I'm going to use this whenever I have to sit through a Fox broadcast.

I'm mostly still annoyed about the J-Mac signing late last year, but I'm dissatisfied with Eckstein on merit, too. He owns one of the emptiest .350 OBPs in baseball -- he usually has fewer than 30 extra-base hits a year. Put it this way: Reed Johnson's lifetime SLG percentage is 50 points higher. Moreover, in half his major-league seasons, Eckstein's SB/CS results are well below the necessary 75%+ success rate. Accordingly, he's not often in scoring position, and that's part of the reason why he hasn't scored more than 70 runs a season since he left Anaheim. He's not a leadoff hitter, especially not for an American League team. He's a ninth-place hitter who misses 40 games a year and looks to be entering a decline phase with the glove. Apparently, that's worth $4.5 million to the Jays.

Eckstein - 309/356/382 for a 20.7 VORP with the bat, -14 Plus/Minus with the glove MacDonald - 251/279/333 for a -7.8 VORP with the bat, +26 Plus/Minus with the glove John Dewan and BIS's Plus/Minus number represents plays made above or below average, with every 3 plays representing roughly a run. MacDonald was 40 plays better than Eckstein last year, which equates to about 13 runs or about 1.3 wins. Therefore, last season Eckstein was worth about 1.7 wins over MacDonald.

Bones, fair enough. I actually do have some concerns about Overbay too, and he may never have another 2006 season in him, but I also think 2007 was a plain aberration. He's a good hitter, plain and simple. I can see him settling in at .280/.350 with 30+ doubles and 15+ HRs while playing excellent defence for another couple of years. That would be just fine.

Glaus, though ... to quote Han Solo, I have a very bad feeling about this. He's a .250 hitter who walks enough to post a .350 OBP, and that's great, but his game revolves around staying healthy enough to whack 35-40 HRs a year. In three of his past five seasons, he's missed significant time and has hit 20 dingers or fewer. We know he's mixed up in the steroid business, which is not a good sign on the health or power fronts going forward. And FWIW, Glaus's most similar batter at BB-Ref is Dean Palmer, and Palmer's career was effectively over after his age-31 season. Glaus is 32 next year. I have real concerns that Troy awfully close to a cliff. If Blair's blog entries are accurate about the Jays trying to find "someone stupid enough" to take Glaus off their hands are accurate, that cliff could be here.

I would agree more with Rob Neyer in that I prefer to think of Eckstein as slightly underrated by stats rather than overrated by partial observers.  I think he's definately a limited player who is likely in defensive decline, but is capable with the bat.

In this very weak middle infield market, getting him for a one year deal is a pretty decent move.  You lose defence but get respectable offence.  And if you have any respect for intangibles, this guys' managers and teammates have always loved the way he plays and I have to admit I really admire his pest attitude at the plate.  I think that kind of player at short is much more acceptable than that kind of player as a corner position where you're more likely to be giving up pure offence.

He is not by any means the ideal leadoff hitter either but the Jays have no such animal unless you go back to the days of a Johnson/Cat type of platoon.  I have no problem with Johnson leading off against lefties or playing against lefties period.

I won't completely disagree with you. I don't think he "knows how to win" necessarily, but I do think he has a strong work ethic and keeps his head in the game. A strong work ethic can't hurt other players but it can pressure them into working hard. If Eckstein does indeed work hard, keep his head in the game, and lead by example, he may have some limited value that goes beyond his statistical output.

It's worth noting that while Eckstein's WS MVP looks great, Troy Glaus won the same award in '02 and he's the anti-Eckstein.

Pretty hard to complain when Eckstein's contract is for one year, we don't lose any draft picks, and the default option was John McDonald. The way I see it, adding Eckstein is all about depth for 2008. I agree that he should be hitting 9th, though.

I'm dissatisfied with Eckstein on merit, too. He owns one of the emptiest .350 OBPs in baseball -- he usually has fewer than 30 extra-base hits a year. Put it this way: Reed Johnson's lifetime SLG percentage is 50 points higher. Moreover, in half his major-league seasons, Eckstein's SB/CS results are well below the necessary 75%+ success rate. Accordingly, he's not often in scoring position, and that's part of the reason why he hasn't scored more than 70 runs a season since he left Anaheim.

I think that's overstating things a little bit.  The main reason he hasn't scored a lot of runs is that he doesn't play full seasons.  It's true that having very little extra base power not being a base stealer makes him more reliant on others to drive him in.  But the Jays potentially have a lot of extra base power hitting right behind him and although he doesn't steal bases well, he's not a leadfoot.  I think you have doubles/triples/homeruns from Hill, Rios, Wells, Thomas, Overbay, Johnson/Stairs, and hopefully Glaus coming up behind him which should help move him around the bases.

Of course you'd love to have a Carl Crawford or a Jose Reyes to give you something close (but still not ideal) to a gold standard leadoff guy.  But in a very limited market at one specific position of need for one year, this is not a bad signing.

The Red Sox were quite interested in Everett...I think they decided that they were able to live just fine without a big offensive contribution from Lugo so plugging in Everett's excellent defence would be a big win for them.  Now he's pretty much free for the signing.

It'll be interesting see if they pick him up whether they eat Lugo's cost in either keeping him on the roster or moving him somewhere else.

Blair's latest blog is pretty interesting, besideds his rejoicing the fact that Towers is gone he mentions that Fasano could be signed by the Jays today and Reed could be traded as well.  I was hoping for Olivo as the back up, Sal's a great guy but wasn't he batting under the Mendoza line last year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/baseball

I honestly don't see what the complaint is with this signing.  $4.5 m doesn't buy you much these days.  Eckstein is a quantum leap over Macdonald with the bat (as I have said a few times before - I don't think most people truly grasp how historically awful Macdonald is with the bat) and, unless you believe SS's make sustainable quantum leaps ahead in defense in their age 32 seasons, the historical difference in defense is not nearly as big as it was last year.  Frankly, I see both Eckstein's and Macdonald's defense slipping noticeably over the next year or two.

To me, there were two fundamental problems (yes, there were many others last year) with Toronto's offense last year: 1) they were OBP terrible last year; and 2) they were playing with a National League lineup (8 hitters and a pitcher - with Macdonald playing the role, very well I might add, of the pitcher) in the American League.  This signing helps address both of these things.

Now is it the best use of the money?  Hard to say, but I don't see how the money could be better spent right now.  Where the money could be better spent is in signing draftees who want over slot money but that ain't going to happen so we need to move on from that.

Fasano? Eckstein? The quality of interviews in the clubhouse - not to mention sincerity - just went up.

Jeff Blair will forgive me if I don't find these traits quite as attractive as he does.

If you like to get all hot and bothered  over lineup analysis, here's a nice little play thing.

According to the plaything:

vs RHP...

1. Overbay, 1B
2. Stairs, DH
3. Zaun, C
4. Rios, RF
5. Glaus, 3B
6. Lind, LF
7. Wells, CF
8. Hill, 2B
9. Eckstein, SS

vs. LHP....

1. Zaun, C
2. Rios, RF
3. Johnson, LF
4. Glaus, 3B
5. Thomas, DH
6. Wells, CF
7. Hill, 2B
8. Overbay, 1B
9. Scutaro, SS
   

<i>RZR numbers from THT have McDonald about 6% more likely to make a play on a ball in the shortstop's "zone".  Over a reasonable season at SS, that's about 18 plays different, or about 15 runs using MGL's numbers, just on plays that a shortstop is supposed to make.    McDonald also made plays out-of-zone at a much better rate than Eckstein: about half-again as many.  I'm unwilling to check the numbers of those around Eckstein for an off-the-cuff comment, but this indicates that McDonald's range is much better than Eckstein's.  I'm unqualified to estimate how many runs that range will save, so I won't. </i>

I fully expect to see the defensive loss with Eckstein in the SS slot extend to Glaus and Hill. McDonald's range allowed them to play the infield differently, to extend 3B coverage closer to the line and slightly in against bunts, and allowed a deeper turn between 2B and 1B, especially when Stairs was covering first to cover his range limitations. Eck's range limitations will force a more traditional setup, much like Royce Clayton's did, opening the gaps a little bit more. So expect our infield defensive stats to regress somewhat this year when he starts.

Yes, we now have three shortstops. That doesn't mean this was a bad signing. What it really does is remind us how bad the Johnny Mac signing was. I am happy to have Eck for a one year with Scooter as the utility guy.

It is Mac that should be the odd guy out.

Blair's statement that Johnson may be traded is good news, in my opinion.  I was actually hoping he'd be non-tendered so that Lind could play everyday.  Trading Johnson and starting Lind would allow the Jays to optimize the use of Stairs as a pinch-hitter off the bench and as the backup at 1B, DH, LF and RF.  Hell, if Thomas continues to struggle against righties, as he did last year, Stairs could even move into a semi-platoon role with Thomas. 

Bill James' projections for 2008 actually have Lind leading the entire Jays' lineup in slugging percentage, with a total line of .297 avg / .349 obp / .500 slg / .849 ops.  His minor league stats suggest that the projection might not be far off.  The lineup would be much improved against right-handed pitching in 2008 with the inclusion of Eckstein and Lind in the lineup instead of McDonald and Johnson. 

Halladay has annointed McDonald as his own personal shortstop, so he will still start all those games.

Which makes sense, because Doc's cutter is a contact pitch. He knows McDonald is a vacuum out in SS and as long as the ball in is play near him, he's going to get the out. I think a great deal of the Jay's success this year with Marcum, McGowan and Litsch came from their willingness to pitch to contact down in the zone because of the quality of the defense behind them. That's why I've got no problems with McDonald's lackluster offense; not only does his defense more than make up for his bat, but his defensive range also brings up the entire infield to optimum levels to succeed. Glaus, who is an excellent 3B arm and glove but has poor range, is able to operate on a narrower zone, and it maxmizes his strengths and minimizes his weaknesses.

A shortstop like Eckstein will require a more traditional alignment out of 3B, 2B and to a limited extent, 1B. That means you will see some regression because issues like Glaus' range can't be compensated for in the same manner. Is that worth Eckstein's offensive upgrade? I don't think so, but there are a lot of offense first people who do.

I'm also not opposed to signing Fasano.

I am also not opposed to the signing of Fasano as a roving organizational Instructor/Coach.

Perhaps  McDonald showed his true ability  level in 2007 when finally given a  chance as an everyday regular.

I couldn't agree with this comment more. In fact McDonald attributed his stellar defensive season to regular playing time and also his preparation for full time duty.

"I’m a big fan of Towers, the person, and I think that in the right situation he could once again be a good major-league starter."

The above quote is Mike Wilner.

I also found Blair's comment stunning. Perhaps he's just doing his usual bit of PR for JP again, you know, giving the skids a wee bit grease. But I always figured that was Wilner's job. Maybe Mike's role is changing. I'm happy to see him becoming less predictable in his analyses.

Thanks for linking the Wilner blog above Wildrose.

I'm quite surprised at the negative feedback towards this move. Eckstein is not a great player, but he has a career .350 OBP and has started at SS for playoff/World Series teams. All it cost was $4.5 million over one year in a market where guys not even as good as Eckstein are getting multiple years.

John McDonald's popularity is overriding some people's better judgement. He's a marginal MLB bench player; great defensively but can't hit to save his life. The fact that he's being paid double what he's worth is bad enough, but some of you are actually upset that he's being replaced by a player LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than him?

As I said before, if Stairs or Lind get the bulk of the playing time against RHP, then there isn't a weak spot in the Jays lineup against RHP anymore (assuming guys like Wells, Overbay, and Glaus stay healthy and perform like they normally do). That's a major step towards being competitive. Just by adding Eckstein, I think this team has made the jump back to where they were in 2006: a team capable of winning 90 games. That's a much better situation to be in than hoping McDonald repeats a season in which he had a .279 OBP (and that was his best overall year!).

On another note, I hope Blair is right about trading Johnson. I like Reed as a platoon fourth OF, but if he's anything more than that I'd be nervous, and I think Gibbons would play him far too much. Give Lind the everyday spot (against righties and lefties) with Stairs backing up LF/RF/1B/DH, and I think the team is better off.

I think SK has said it. Eckstein is clearly an upgrade at SS for this team at this time, mainly because he can get himself on base at a rate that makes him useful. McDonald is popular among fans for wnatever reason .(I suspect a lot of it is that we can identify with a guy who works hard and has a job that many of us would like to do even though we know we wouldn't be good at it either.)

  The thing about Eck that is going to require considerable gritting of the teeth while we're viewing games on TV is that many of us can already anticipate the annoying and downright stupid things announcers are going to say about him as he comes to bat. (How do we identify a "gritty" player exactly? What does a "leader" look like? Does he have to be short?) I am cringing now at the prospect of Rod Black speaking on the subject (over and over and over). But none of that is the player's fault.

but some of you are actually upset that he's being replaced by a player LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than him?

I don't concur that this assessment accurately reflects the general opinion in these parts. I think that most are arguing that Eckstein does represent an improvement over McDonald but are simply trying to appropriately guage Eckstein's value. That's where opinions diverge and that's where the debates seem to focus. 

Is he a leadoff hitter or a ninth place hitter?
How is his defense? Various metrics have him above anywhere from below average to above average.
If his defense really did plummet in 2007, was that an aberration?
Is McDonald really a gold glover or was his 2007 an aberration?
How does the calculus work for the groundball pitchers? Does McDonald make more sense for them?
Is the "gritty" Eckstein really inspirational or is that balderdash?
Does the fact that he played on two WS winners mean he "knows how to win" or is that balderdash?

Nice post, Chinafan. I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read Bones' comments bashing Blair.

Make that 11 games over .500 in JMac starts, 97-86

Wow.  That's what I like about JMac - he's gritty, he's a gamer and he knows how to win!!!

Coat, please.

David Eckstein is a (barely) average hitter for a SS, and a below average fielder.  Using him instead of McDonald will have no significant effect on how the team does.

This is what I don't understand. Over the last three seasons, Eckstein has ranked in the top 10 in OBP among MLB short-stops (peaking at 4th in 2005) in each season. He has one very prominent skill, and he does it at an above average clip (get on base). OPS is always going to hurt players with little to no power, but that doesn't mean he's not a good player. Where does McDonald's .270 OBP rank? I'd imagine dead last, by a big margin.

If you look at the three year splits between Eckstein and McDonald, you'll notice that against RHP from 2005-07, Eckstein has a +/- .200 advantage in OBP and OPS over McDonald. .200! If you had a choice between a 1.000 OPS player or an .800 OPS player, which would you choose? Well, against RHP, that's essentially the difference between Eckstein and Mac (more like .750 versus .550, but you get the point). That's not a significant advantage? That's not a game changer?

Look, I want a great defensive player at every position as much as the next guy, but some times, you have to take a hit on defense when a significant offensive upgrade becomes available, and this is one of those cases. Eckstein is a SUBSTANTIAL improvement over McDonald offensively, and if Eck's defense is even average, then the team is way better off him with starting as many games as he can. I wonder if the same people backing McDonald here have the same rationale with Lind vs. Reed Johnson in LF?

I know people hate the "he's a winner" argument, but the fact that Eckstein has been on WS and playoff teams as the starting SS is significant because it means teams can win with him playing a lot. And his numbers haven't really changed throughout the years, so it's not like he's in the beginning of a decline either. Regardless, even if he was a career loser, I still wouldn't feel any differently about this move.

Using him will have no significant impact? From what I've seen in these threads, it looks like he will contribute an additional 2 - 3 wins for the team (all other factors remaining equal).

3 wins is not significant? I would say 4.5 million dollars to add potentially 3 wins to an already good team is a great investment and is certainly significant, at least significant enough to warrant the respect it deserves.

And what I really don't understand - everyone is quick to point to Eckstein's and McDonald's last year (at least defensively) and go "That's how they do". There have been a few posts to the contrary, but it seems to be the theme that MacDonald's defence will not regress from last year, whereas Eckstein's surely well. Isn't this a bit biased? They are both in their early thirties. Eckstein, over the course of his career, has consistently been considered average to slightly above defensively and then he has one really bad season and suddenly that's how he's supposed to do from here on out?

There is no guarentee that MacDonald will be as good defensively as he was last year. People keep saying he did better last year because there wasn't the fear of getting yanked. But what the hell - the same thing happened in 2006 and he didn't turn into one of the most elite fielding shortstops in the game that season. But then it happened the next year...  explain to me again how in 2006, without the fear of being yanked, he didn't perform to his true levels, then in 2007, when again the fear of being yanked was eliminated, he suddenly did start performing to his true levels? Common! Honestly? He had a career year with the glove. He won't be that good in 2008 defensively. Thankfully, with this signing, we won't have to endure watching it first hand.

And, look at MacDonald's career splits for first half/second half.  He's been a full 70 points of OPS worse over the second half then the first half.

In 2006 he didn't regress overall in the 2nd half offensively - but his OBP did drop 23 points while his slugging increased by 40 points. He hit 3 home runs in the 2nd half which I will say with confidence explains the vast majority of his OPS increase but can also say will more than likely never happen again. So realistically Johnny MacDonald is well above average SS defensively - but not the superstar he looked like last year, and one of the worst hitters in all of baseball. 

Eckstein will be very close to average defensively but probably on the under side. He will be below average offensively as well, but such a substantial upgrade over MacDonald that his impact on the team's performance, dare I say it, will be significant.

I do believe in intangibles. I'm not going to say gritty, winner, or anything like that. I believe in momentum though. Johnny MacDonald is a momentum killer offensively, and I think his impact on the "bottom line" when it comes to runs scored is worse than just the cold hard numbers that say he sucks. It's worse because while that out he makes in the 6th inning with 2 runners on and 2 outs is only an 0 - 1 on the scorecard, it ends the rally, brings up the top of the lineup with nobody on base (so lower leverage situations), etc, etc.  I think in this sense, just to keep the line moving, Eckstein will help drastically to improve the overall team offence. 

Remember Boys and Girls - this isn't an either or game - we get to keep both the Minister of Defense and Super Guppy. If his tinyness can't cut it we just go back to JMac (if Jlo isn't available) - IF the little guy is OK we can still bring in Mr Glove to play the late innings.

What I like about this is that JP made a move he thought would improve the team even if it means he had to have 13 SS's on the team - in spring training it'll all come together. For the first time in YEARS, 1 through 9 there is no balck hole.

In addition, I count ELEVEN players that could be SIGNIFICANTLY better next season:

Halladay (He's due for a full healthy season)
Burnett (See Roy above)
McGowan (Ready to fully bloom?)
Johnson (Back from back surgery)
Overbay (BOTH pins out of his wrist)
Zaun (Broken hand - fixed)
Wells (Shoulder now OK)
Glaus (Healthy feets?)
Rios (Also due for a fully healthy season)
Hill (Molitor time?)
Thomas (FINALLY fully healthy - has sworn to come to camp ready to play in April not July!)

With all these guys at last years pace we were 13 out of first and 11 out of the wildcard. NO TEAM in the AL has has many opportunities to improve as we do. If 9 of these 11 step up we can WIN, NO QUESTION! The Yanks and Sox both have only 2 or three players that could have better seasons, and many that could have worse.

On an unrelated Eckstein note, the Jays have signed Fasano to a minor league deal but are still looking at other options as Bastian notes in his blog:

Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi said that the club may look at some free agents or for a catcher via trade. No kidding.

But, Ricciardi did note that Miguel Olivo, who was recently non-tendered by the Marlins, was indeed on the Jays' radar. Olivo isn't great defensively, but he has a solid arm and can hit lefties -- the criteria Toronto's looking for in the catcher who will back up Gregg Zaun.

http://mlbastian.mlblogs.com/

Just cause there haven't been enough numbers already...

Linear Weights Batting Runs over the past 3 years, (multiplied out to a 550 PA season)

McDonald
2005: -5.8 (-17.3)
2006: -20.2 (-38.8)
2007: -19.2 (-29.9)

Eckstein
2005: -0.4 (-0.3)
2006: -13.8 (-13.8)
2007: -3.2 (-3.6)

So as sort-of-fulltime players over the past 3 years Eckstein looks like an average of 22 runs better than McDonald.
I guess the question is can we reasonably expect McDonald to be 20+ runs better than Eckstein on defence?

(This is an actual question, I'm no defence expert...can we expect that?) 

GregJP, if a .200 OPS gain against RHP (McDonald to Eckstein) isn't enough to off-set a defensive drop, where do you draw the line? Should Johnson start over Lind? Fasano over Zaun?

I can't believe this forum is supporting a .270 OBP/sub-.600 OPS defensive player this passionately. Is John McDonald that lovable, or am I missing something? I wonder if some of you were this kind to Cesar Izturis when people used him as an example of a bad trade done by Ricciardi?

mylegacy,

I agree with you on the potential for improvement next year.  I also love the optimism because really, what's the point in being a sports fan if you're a cynic.  Clearly it isn't making you happy and you should consider finding a new hobby. 

Let me just add two names to your list that could realistically make the Jays stronger in 08, BJ Ryan and Brandon League.  Surely to goodness we can have that one season where 80% of things go right and the Jays are a playoff club.  It could be this season.  Believing that is what keeps me going as a Jay fan as long as they reside in the AL East.

I think that's the crux of the issue.  There seems to be a tendency of thinking that once you get below a .310OBP or a .360SLG that everything is equally bad.  Which isn't true.

A .370 SLG is better than a .290 SLG
The same as .520 is better than .440

It's sort of like the old argument that it doesn't matter how bad he is at hitting, he's paid to defend.  (Or conversely, it doesn't matter how bad he is with the glove he's paid to hit)

If a .200 OPS gain against RHP (McDonald to Eckstein) isn't enough to off-set a defensive drop, where do you draw the line? Should Johnson start over Lind? Fasano over Zaun?

I think one of the key points that is being missed is that you're looking at comparing a largely individual metric with a largely integrated one. One of the difficulties with fielding metrics is that, like ERA, it is as highly dependent on the field in play as much as individual ability. Players play differently depending on the abilities of those with them because fielding is meant to work as an integrated unit.

Eckstein in the lineup degrades the entire infield defense because he lacks the range to optimumly position the other three positions in a standard at bat. Limited range in your 3B and SS means we will be giving up a lot more hits to the left side. We will be more vulnerable to bunting down the line because Glaus will have to play back, which in turn means that you'll have to pull your LF away from the line to cover the zone. So that .200 OPS is up against the fielding percentage loss at all four infield positions and LF.

I think there's a bias towards offensive because it is easy to quantify with a few stats. Defensive is a far more difficult beast, which is why even the best metrics still have major issues, trying to track and balance against different positions, player interactions and protean setups, as opposed to fixed positions like batting and pitching. McDonald's defense has a legitimate value that could surpass Eckstein's offensive, but you can't simply compare lines and dismiss defense minded fans as being without grounds.

I've always wondered this, how consistent is defence?

We all know to watch out for hitters who have a bunch of mediocre seasons and then one very good one.  But I never really hear about the same thing with defensive seasons.  John McDonald was spectacular in 2007, and has always been a good defensive SS (I assume).  But if 2007 was much better than any other defensive year he has had, (once again, I'm assuming here, anyone feel free to tell me I'm wrong) wouldn't it be hasty to assume he's going to be just as good in his next few seasons?

I've always wondered this, how consistent is defence?

Depends on the player. There are people who finally 'get it' like Rios or Lind, but you have to have the physical tools there as well. McDonald, as I can remember, worked behind Omar Vizquel as a shortstop, learning a lot of the craft from him. You can actually see they shift R/L very similarly. He was very solid in 2006, but hit a wall pretty rapidly once moving to the everyday position. This year he conditioned as a starter, which I think might have had a lot to do with his increased physical presence in the field.

There's no reason to assume 2007 is an outlier. Most of the remarkable nature of his play comes from reading the ball off the bat well, positioning to each batter/pitcher combo, and gauging depth. It's hard to consider all of those things just a fluke. Could he? Sure, but it seems less likely considering his year's success wasn't based on a sudden giant physical improvement.

This whole Ekstein and his defence thing has me thinking, could the Jays possibly play Ekstein at second and Hill at short? Or would this open a whole new can of worms? Do you think J.P. and Gibbons would even consider this?

The Blue Jays website is quoting J.P. as saying he is looking at other catching options outside of Fassano. The Fassano signing is pretty much for depth.

Zaun rakes against lefties, does he not?

There's no need to speculate on questions like this. The information is all out there.

Lifetime vs LHP: 274/366/389
Lifetime vs RHP: 248/338/388

He's about 30 OPS points better vs LHP. In 2007, the skew was 50 points.

Because of the paucity of LHB catchers, the team's backup is almost certainly going to be a RHB, almost certainly with a skew that favours them against LHP. Estrada skews the other way (682/740 careers OPS vs LHP/RHP) but may be after more money than Ricciardi is interested in paying.

There's no need to speculate on questions like this.

Chuck, are those pre-steroid stats really relevant??  The three-year splits from ESPN might give us a better idea of his current ability.

vs.  LHP   .302/.401/.451

vs.  RHP  .240/.339/.398

Firstly, KLaw does not always write bad things about the JP and the Jays.

I remember he once wrote, "Even when JP was falling down drunk, he still seemed to have a big nose." Now, if that's not a compliment I don't know what is!

Firstly, KLaw does not always write bad things about the JP and the Jays.

I remember he once wrote, "Even when JP was falling down drunk, he still seemed to have a big nose." Now, if that's not a compliment I don't know what is!

LOL    Awesome dude.

Chuck, are those pre-steroid stats really relevant??  The three-year splits from ESPN might give us a better idea of his current ability.
vs.  LHP   .302/.401/.451
vs.  RHP  .240/.339/.398

Not sure if you're serious or taking the mickey. I'm assuming it's the latter but will nonetheless take the bait and answer as if it's the former.

First, he's only had 240 AB total vs LHP over the past three years, so it's not a huge number we're talking about here. Second, turn 14 singles into outs vs LHP and he's right around 242/341/391, basically exactly what he's done against RHP in that time.

So, these are some interesting steroids we're speculating about. Basically, they don't help you at all as a LHB, but they help you hit singles as a RHB. And they don't do much for your your ISO, i.e., your power. You reckon all that's written on the label?

Some seem to be neglecting the point of view that OBP is more valuebale than SLG. Eckstein's incremental offensive contribution over MacDonald is under appreciatd using OPS.

Does that notion really apply to all runs? If you are trailing 5-4 in the 8th inning, should you be less likely to pinch-hit than if you were trailing 5-1, because the 5th you score is less valuable than the 2nd? Isn't the reverse true in that situation?

You're confusing a context-free generalization with a specific case. Generally speaking, a 5th run will have less marginal value than a 4th. There will be instances, as in your example, where this is not the case. There are instances where a 12th run has extreme value, i.e., in an 11-11 game. But as these instances are scarce, the marginal value of a 12th run is, generally speaking, much less than those that preceeded it.

I recall Bill James noodling with an adjusted RBI stat where he specifically bemoaned Don Baylor's MVP which, he felt, was the byproduct of his 130-whatever RBIs (he was dumbfounded that anyone could conclude that Baylor was more valuable than Grich). I think he tried to ascribe a true value to each run batted in based on its incremental worth and came away with the conclusion that many of Baylor's RBIs were valueless add-ons in blowouts.

Or something like that.

I'll have to dig up my Abstracts and have a look. Shouldn't be too hard to find, presumably being in the Abstract that followed Baylor's MVP.

You'd like to think that someone else somewhere has researched and published incremental run values based on the different run environments.

Just for something a little lighter - in St. Louis you can buy a David Eckstein breakfast cereal called "Ecks O's" - promoted on his wife's website.  http://www.ashleydrane.com/

 The Jays are in a situation though where they were one of the bottom offensive teams in the league, and did particularly badly against righthanded pitching. I'm not convinced that additional runs they can score are worth any less than runs they prevent.

I think that part of the problem was how they were scoring the runs. unfortunately run support isn't consistant winning 11-1 looks great in a boxscore but isn't great when you need that 1 extra run to tie or win.

anyone have a link handy with Jays situational records by score? I think i remember seeing something like that somewhere.