Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Drew Stubbs -- Expectations: Medium, Grade: B-
In 2010, Drew Stubbs (he of the unrivaled opportunity cost) flashed the type of well-rounded game that first piqued the interest of Reds management and ultimately prompted his selection in the draft.
Heading into the season, Stubbs was coming off a respectable, albeit not impact level, slash line of .267/.323/.439 in 180 ABs. So, that coupled with his draft position meant he carried a decent set of expectations into the 2010 season. When all was said and done, his 2010 level of performance, .255/.329/.444, resembled what he posted in 2009. Of course, Stubbs had to travel many peaks and valleys to arrive at those final numbers.
His OPS by month was as follows:
October consisted of only a handful of ABs, so basically Stubbs had 3 strong months and 3 weak months. It all evened out in the end, but going forward it would be easier for the team to rely on Stubbs if his production was more consistent.
The knock on Stubbs has long been his ability to make consistent contact, so it's not surprising that his AB/K rate worsened from 3.7 in 2009 to 3.1 in 2010. He struck out basically once every three ABs, which in part helps explain his long slumps. If you can't consistently put the ball in play, then the chances increase that you will struggle to produce, as swings-and-misses never produce positive outcomes.
The acquisition of Jim Edmonds notwithstanding, the Reds showed commendable patience with Drew Stubbs, giving him ample time to work through his struggles and put it together. Given Dusty's preference for veteran players, the Reds deserve quite a bit of credit for running Stubbs out there day after unproductive day. Ultimately, that patience was rewarded in a big way, as Stubbs blew up in August (.296/.363/.507/.870) and September (.311/.406/.578/.984).
On the defensive side, Stubbs didn't quite perform up to his reputation. Scouting reports have long stated that Stubbs was a Gold Glove caliber centerfielder, even while he was still a Longhorn. That reputation aside, Stubbs rated around league average under both UZR/150 (0.2) and the +/- metric (+5, ranked 14th overall). According to the +/- breakdown, Stubbs struggled significantly on shallow hit balls. He rated as a +10 on deep balls, +3 on medium balls, and -7 on shallow hit balls. What's interesting about that breakdown is that all the scouting reports on Stubbs in the minors stated that his only defensive flaw was his struggles going back on the deep ball. When you pair those two facts together, I have to wonder if Stubbs played a deeper centerfield to offset his struggles on the deep ball. That would account both for his impressive performance on deep balls and his struggles on shallow ones. Regardless, watching him effortlessly glide across the outfield turf makes it almost impossible to imagine Stubbs not becoming one of the very best defensive centerfielders in baseball.
Perhaps the most impressive component of his performance was also the least heralded: his baserunning. Not only did he swipe bases at a very impressive clip (30 of 36, 83%), but he excelled in taking the extra base. Stubbs performed as follows:
1st to 3rd: 13 Advances in 31 Opportunities
2nd to Home: 17 Advances in 21 Opportunities
1st to Home: 8 Advances in 10 Opportunities
All of which was good for a +17 mark, so Stubbs was 17 bases above average. When adding together his stellar basestealing totals and his strong baserunning, Stubbs was a real weapon on the bases. His dual success rate speaks both to his plus speed and his strong instincts on the bases, but also serves as additional evidence that Stubbs possesses both skills and tools. He doesn't simply have speed, but also the understanding of how to effectively utilize it.
Despite the inconsistencies and the disappointing defense, it's difficult not to be optimistic about Stubbs heading into 2011 based solely on his final 2+ months of play. If Stubbs can perform at that level over the course of an entire season, then his value will go through the roof. In the future, we may look back at 2010 as being a big stepping stone in the career of Drew Stubbs.
Jay Bruce -- Expectations: Medium, Grade: B+
After his 2010 season, it seems crystal clear that Jay Bruce is on the cusp of stardom. Bruce told the press that he would be open to a long term deal with the Reds and they would be foolish to not have him locked up long term prior to the first pitch of opening day.
In 2010, Bruce hit a rock solid .281/.353/.493 with 25 homers and a 136/58 K/BB ratio. After a substantial drop in line drive rate in 2009 (13.0%), Bruce fixed his swing and was again ripping line drives at a very good clip (20.1%). His walk rate has increased from 7.3% to 9.8% to 10.1% in his three years in the majors. He also performed better against southpaws (.899 OPS) than righthanders (.822 OPS) in 2010. That may be a sample size outcome, but at the very least he has improved against lefties. Over the last three seasons, Bruce's HR/FB has dropped from 20.2% to 16.8% to 15.3%. While the rate at which fly balls leave the yard is considered a skill largely within a hitter's control, it's not difficult to imagine a homerun surge in 2011, as all of his other skills seem to be trending up so it seems logical that the homeruns will almost inevitably follow.
Bruce's OPS by month was as follows:
Unlike Stubbs, Bruce had only 1 bad month. He also had 3 pretty good months and 2 outstanding ones. As with Stubbs, if Bruce can maintain his final 2+ months of production in 2011, then he'll be on the verge of superstar status. And, of course, superstars are both incredibly valuable and incredibly expensive. (Subliminal message: Lock him up NOW!!!)
On the defensive side of the ball, regardless of the metric, Bruce graded out as one of the best rightfielders in the game. Under UZR/150, Bruce posted a robust 19.0. Under the +/- metric, he posted a stellar +25, which translates into 14 runs saved with the leather. That level of performance graded out as the best defensive rightfielder in baseball. Additionally, unlike Stubbs, Bruce excelled on all batted balls (+4 shallow, +6 medium, +15 deep), so there is little question that Bruce is already a legitimate impact talent on defense.
Bruce was also strong on the bases, albeit not in the stolen base department (5 stolen bases in 9 attempts). On the bases, Bruce grades out as a +9, so he was roughly 9 bases above average.
Bruce performed as follows:
1st to 3rd: 11 Advances in 25 Opportunities
2nd to Home: 15 Advances in 18 Opportunities
1st to Home: 6 Advances in 7 Opportunities
Overall, I'm more than a little bullish on Bruce going forward. He struggled in 2009, but showed his ability to deal with adversity by bouncing back strong in 2010. His peripherals are trending in the right direction and he already possesses an incredibly well-rounded game. Bruce has performed up to his considerable ceiling at times, now all he needs to do is maintain that level of performance over a full season.
Jonny Gomes -- Expectations: Medium, Grade: D-
On a certain level, I'm a fan of Jonny Gomes. I like his attitude and feel his skill set can create value if used properly, especially when his cost is low. Unfortunately, the cost is rising and the Reds failed to properly utilize Gomes. As a result, the "cost per unit of production" about which I was optimistic when he was first signed vanished in 2010. The production has been hindered by improper usage and the cost continues to escalate along with his service time.
Heading into the season, Gomes was coming off a strong slash line of .267/.338/.541 which raised expectations for 2010. Unfortunately, his production tailed off as he posted a slash line of .266/.327/.431/.758, which isn't terrible except when you factor in that his performance was skewed heavily by one very strong month.
Gomes's OPS by month was as follows:
He basically had 1 Ruthian month, 1 decent month, and 4 really poor months. His offense simply needs to be significantly better than that to justify the Reds carrying his glove. In keeping with his career norms, he performed better against southpaws (.285/.378/.479) than he did against righthanders (.257/.301/.408). On defense, there's no kind way to put it, Gomes was atrocious. Under the UZR/150 mark, he posted an abysmal -19.1 mark. Under the +/- metric, he posted an awful -18, which translates into a -10 runs saved.
On the plus side, Gomes actually ran the bases fairly well. In 2010, he graded out at as a +7, so he was roughly 7 bases above average. Gomes performed as follows:
1st to 3rd: 14 Advances in 39 Opportunities
2nd to Home: 8 Advances in 21 Opportunities
1st to Home: 5 Advances in 9 Opportunities
In light of all the success the Reds are having running the bases, it may be time to give some credit to the base coaches. The Reds obviously have talent, but Billy Hatcher and Mark Berry seem to deserve a bit of credit as well.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly given his struggles on offense and defense, Gomes actually graded out as below replacement level. His WAR (Wins Above Replacement) was a mere -0.1. By definition, that level of performance can be obtained from a minor league free agent or a AAAA caliber player.
I still believe Gomes can generate positive value, but he needs to be utilized in a fashion that minimizes his weaknesses and emphasizes his strengths. Namely, he needs to be a platoon outfielder or a source of power off the bench.
Lanyce Nix -- Expectations: Low, Grade: B
Nix posted a .239/.291/.476 line in 2009, so expectations for 2010 were rather muted. The slugging percentage was strong, but when two of the three slash line numbers fall below .300 there is cause for concern. Regardless, Nix took his performance up a notch in 2010 and provided a nice bit of production for minimal cost.
Nix posted a line of .291/.350/.455 to go along with a 39/15 K/BB ratio. He managed to club 4 homeruns in the process. Unlike Gomes, the Reds utilized Nix properly, giving him 149 ABs against righties and only 16 against lefties. Interestingly enough, Nix received about half as many ABs in 2010 as he did in 2009. On the flip side, Gomes received about twice as many ABs in 2010 as he did in 2009. Can it be mere coincidence that the more these two play, the less impressive their numbers become? The larger the sample size, the worse the production.
On the defensive side, the metrics are all stellar, but the small sample size limits their utility. They are in line with his reputation on defense, which has long been solid. Still, Nix has long had decent tools, but struggled to effectively utilize them. That may be why he always seems to have untapped potential, which is why Dusty once lovingly called him a "monster."
Unlike the aforementioned on this list, Nix struggled on the bases. He posted a -5, so was roughly 5 bases below average. He also lacks basestealing ability, so he's largely a station-to-station type player.
Maybe it's simply a sample size issue, but Nix was a better value in 2010 than he was in 2009.
Chris Heisey -- Expectations: Low, Grade: B
Despite his strong performance in the minors, Heisey came into the season with minimal expectations. It simply wasn't clear that he would get the opportunity and, if he did, that he would be able to produce. All in all, he did rather well with the opportunity he received.
Heisey posted a respectable rookie slash line of .254/.324/.433/.757 with a somewhat lackluster 57/16 K/BB ratio and 8 homeruns. His walk rate isn't great, but he supplemented his OBP with 6 hit by pitches, which may or may not be sustainable. If it's not sustainable, then he'll need to improve his walk rate in the future. Additionally, he hit line drives at a solid 19.4% rate. Surprisingly, he struggled against southpaws (.545 OPS), but performed well against righties (.925 OPS).
On defense, Heisey split time between all three outfield spots. The sample size is too small for defensive metrics to mean much of anything, but he actually grades out as above average at all three spots under both UZR/150 and the +/- metric. I question his range in center, but he certainly was up to the task in 2010.
As with all the outfielders on this list save Nix, Heisey was very effective in running the bases. Impressively, Heisey was roughly 12 bases above average, which is very strong in light of his limited playing time.
Heisey performed as follows:
1st to 3rd: 7 Advances in 13 Opportunities
2nd to Home: 6 Advances in 8 Opportunities
1st to Home: 3 Advances in 3 Opportunities
Despite his limited playing time, Heisey managed to post a 1.3 WAR (Wins Above Replacement), which was significantly better than Gomes. Overall, it was a strong overall rookie season for Heisey and one that could have him in line for more playing time in 2011.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Ramon Hernandez -- Expectations: Low, Grade: C
Ramon arrived in Cincy with mild expectations, as he was carrying around three straight seasons of .715 or lower OPS. He simply hasn't been an impact hitter, rather just an inexpensive veteran backstop with mediocre expectations. On the plus side, Great American Ballpark is the fountain of youth for righthanded hitters, so Hernandez would have that working in his favor.
Not surprisingly, Hernandez had his best season in four years, posting a line of .297/.364/.428/.792 with an OPS of .818 at home and .763 on the road. Ultimately, Hernandez was a solid player in 2010, providing decent production behind the plate and his ability to speak Spanish to the young Spanish speaking pitchers on the staff could only have helped. All in all, Hernandez was a solid veteran presence behind the dish. After factoring in the friendly hitting environment, Hernandez performed pretty much right in line with expectations.
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Hernandez is his ability to elevate his hitting in key situations. I always have lingering doubt about a hitter's ability to consistently perform better in a specific spot in the lineup or in a specific situation. My thoughts run along the lines of "if he can elevate in certain spots, why wouldn't he elevate it all the time?" But, Ramon is just such a hitter. He seemingly DOES possess the ability to elevate his game in key situations.
In 2010, Hernandez hit .233/.285/.367/.652 with no runners on base, .318/.392/.447/.839 with runners on, and .327/.418/.451/.869 with runners in scoring position. The bigger the situation, the better the performance.
Additionally, over the course of his career, Hernandez has hit better in big situations.
Total Career: .265/.329/.418/.747
Career "High Leverage": .295/.360/.458/.818
Career "Medium Leverage": .264/.323/.397/.719
Career "Low Leverage": .251/.320/.416/.736
Both in 2010 and over the course of his career, Hernandez seemingly has had the knack for elevating his game when situation so requires. He seems to like the big moments and the chance for the big hit. Despite my skepticism of whether a player can consistently elevate his game in different situations, Hernandez seems to be able to do just that.
Hernandez was good enough that when paired with the next player in our list, he formed part of one of the most productive catching tandems in the majors.
Ryan Hanigan -- Expectations: Low, Grade: A-
The Reds signed Hanigan as an amateur free agent in 2002. After going undrafted and spending parts of 9 seasons in the minors, he finally broke through at the MLB level in 2010. Hanigan stepped up in a big way in 2010, posting a slash line of .300/.405/.429/.834. He didn't show much power, but made up for it with a stellar K/BB ratio of 21/33 and the second highest OBP among qualifying Reds hitters. Not too shabby.
One of the biggest reasons for Hanigan's success is his plate approach, as he rarely chases pitches outside the zone. It's remarkable how much easier hitting becomes when you don't help the pitcher out by chasing bad pitches. Let those pitches go and tilt the probability of success in your favor. Hanigan does just that.
In 2010, only 18.9% of Hanigan's swings were on pitches outside the strikezone, which landed him among the league leaders in the category. He also saw quite a few pitches per plate appearance (4.08 #P/PA), which when coupled with his refusal to chase bad balls makes him something of a tough out for opposing pitchers. Hanigan forces the pitcher to beat him, rather than making it easy by helping the pitcher out.
Once Hanigan did get a pitch to his liking he made contact 92.5% of the time. And, when he made contact, it resulted in a line a robust 20.8% of the time. Hanigan doesn't have much power, but he seems an ideal hit-and-run candidate and one of the better table-setters on the roster. The fact that he spent a grand total of 1 AB in the top 5 spots in the batting order is a clear failure on the part of Dusty Baker. But, of course, Dusty has long favored speed over on-base skill in his table-setters, which remains his biggest flaw as a manager.
Hanigan also did his part to slow the opposition running game, as he threw out 13 of 41 basestealers (31.7%) and seemed to call a better game than Hernandez.
If he can maintain that performance level, then it wouldn't be at all surprising to see Hanigan take over the larger role of the catching tandem in 2011. Overall, Hanigan was a very pleasant surprise for the Reds and helped provide one of the most productive catching tandems in baseball.
Joey Votto -- Expectations: High, Grade: A+
.324/.424/.600/1.024. A truly amazing season which establishes Votto as one of the top 2 or 3 hitters in the National League. As impressive as it was, even more impressive is that it was supported by the peripherals. Votto ripped line drives at a 20% clip and surprisingly was more productive on the road. At home, he posted a .950 OPS, while on the road he had a 1.093 OPS, which forecloses any notion that Votto was merely a product of a hitter friendly environment.
In fact, in the long history of the team, Votto's 2010 season was tied for the 14th best offensive season (at least according to Offensive WAR). The list reads as follows:
1. Joe Morgan (1975) 10.3
2. Joe Morgan (1976) 9.9
3. Joe Morgan (1972) 9.2
4. Joe Morgan (1973) 8.9
5. Joe Morgan (1974) 8.5
6. Frank Robinson (1962) 8.0
7. Cy Seymour (1905) 7.8
t8. Barry Larkin (1996) 7.7
t8. Johnny Bench (1972) 7.7
10. Ted Kluszewski (1954) 7.5
11. Pete Rose (1969) 7.4
12. Eric Davis (1987) 7.3
13. Joe Morgan (1977) 7.1
t14. Joey Votto (2010) 6.9
t14. Frank Robinson (1961) 6.9
Votto exceeded all my expectations in 2010, which continues a theme. I have never been happier to be wrong on a player than I have been on Votto. I simply didn't see this type of upside as he climbed the ladder, but his level of performance continued to improve as the competition got tougher. All of this culminated in an MVP caliber season with more undoubtedly on the horizon for one of the two or three best hitters in the NL.
Brandon Phillips -- Expectations: Medium, Grade: C+
At this point, there is no less surprising player on the roster than Phillips, whose performance has a metronome like consistency. His performance baseline is well established as .750-.770 OPS on offense and Gold Glove caliber defense.
On the season, Phillips hit the usual .275/.332/.430/.762, but struggled mightily on the basepaths where he stole 16 bases and was nabbed 12 times. It was the first time in 5 seasons that Phillips failed to swipe over 20 bases. Obviously, that type of "success" rate is unacceptable, as Phillips simply gave away too many outs.
Overall, it was largely what we've come to expect from Phillips. His production was on pace to be a tick better than in years past, but a terrible September (caused in part by a hand injury) dragged his numbers back down to his career norms. Phillips logged 97 ABs in September and posted a lackluster .175/.266/.278/.544 slash line. The Reds were pushing for a postseason spot, but in hindsight it was clearly a questionable decision for Dusty Baker to keep running Phillips out there. Not only did it drag down his overall numbers, but most importantly his performance simply didn't help the Reds win ballgames.
Overall, for better or worse, Phillips is as consistent as a metronome. His most valuable attribute is and always has been his defense. As a 29-year old, Phillips should have a few more peak seasons left in him, but his decline phase isn't too far off. Until it arrives, we'll continue to know what to expect.
Scott Rolen -- Expectations: Medium, Grade: B+
I was in favor of the Scott Rolen experiment and he certainly didn't disappoint. For me, Rolen was a key component in the Reds breaking through and into the postseason in 2010.
In 2010, Rolen was a 5-win player, which was roughly a 3-win improvement over the production the Reds got out of third base in 2009. And, his presence seemed to extend beyond the playing field, as he seemed to be a stabilizing influence on a young Reds lineup. In addition, he gave the Reds much better L/R balance in the lineup (a legitimate problem in years past), and was a very steady glove who helped out the entire pitching staff with his ability to make plays. Rolen not only improved the Reds significantly at the hot corner, but also seemed to make those around him better.
Unfortunately, Rolen faded in the final two months of the season, especially in slugging percentage which fell down to .402 in August and .365 in September. It's becoming clear that this is a problem that is unlikely to go away, as his pre and post All Star splits over the past 3-years showed a marked decline Rolen's ability to drive the ball. Over the 2008-2010 seasons, Rolen has hit .293/.366/.484/.850 before the All Star break and .272/.347/.427/.774 after the break. His slugging percentage drops .057 after the break. Clearly, some combination of age and shoulder injury cause him to wear down, sapping his ability to drive the ball.
As a result, the Reds will be forced to address the question of how to get the most out of Rolen in 2011. Simply put, the team will need to find a respectable back-up, both to give Rolen a breather and fill in when injuries arise. Rolen was certainly a pleasant surprise, but going forward the Reds would be better served by finding an impact righthanded cleanup hitter. Doing so would allow them to shift Rolen down to a more complimentary spot in the lineup (i.e. 6th). Rolen remains a very good baseball player, but at this point it would be foolish to expect him to carry a team like he did during his peak seasons.
Paul Janish -- Expectations: Low, Grade: B
Paul Janish had the type of season I suspected was in there all along. I have long liked Janish's combination of short, quick, line-drive swing and disciplined approach at the plate. That combination of attributes should have been sufficient in light of his stellar defensive tools.
In 2010, Janish made the most of his opportunity. However, the Reds decision to sign Orlando Cabrera still leaves Janish with something of a question mark over his head. Janish performed rather well, but the sample size isn't quite large enough to state that Janish is a surefire starter. Unfortunately, that leaves the Reds on the horns of a dilemma for 2011, as they still don't know if they can rely on Janish to hold down the job fulltime.
Despite a solid .260/.338/.385/.723 slash line, Janish sported some rather strange splits. Despite Great American Ballpark being a hitter's Valhalla for righthanders, Janish actually performed significantly better on the road. At home, Janish hit .213/.307/.247/.554, while he was appreciably better on the road at .297/.363/.495/.858. He also performed significantly better during the day (.318/.389/.435/.824), than at night (.217/.300/.348/.648).
So, the question is whether the 2010 splits will normalize over a larger sample size or whether Janish was protected from his splits by the small sample size. The Reds will have to decide, but early rumblings indicate that they have no intention of handing the starting job over to Janish. At the very least, Janish has proven his value as a utility infielder who packs a steady glove. When the Reds were kicking the ball around the field in the postseason, Paul Janish was the only player I actually trusted to have a ball hit his way.
In short, Janish went from a borderline MLB player to potentially a legitimate starting shortstop. It's hard not to label that type of season a success.
Orlando Cabrera -- Expectations: Low, Grade: D+
When the Reds announced the signing of O-Cab, I was immediately against it. I thought Paul Janish offered comparable, if not superior, production at a much lower cost. The bang-for-the-buck easily favored Janish.
One thing I thought would actually work in O-Cab's favor was the boost he would get from Great American Ballpark. Unfortunately and surprisingly, the boost never arrived. In 2009, O-Cab hit .284/.316/.389 combined in Minnesota and Oakland, while in 2010 he hit only .263/.303/.354 for the Reds. He declined in batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage.
The one saving grace for O-Cab was that he actually exceeded expectations on defense. Under the UZR/150 metric, O-Cab was 5.3 runs above average, while under the John Dewan +/- metric O-Cab was a -2. Neither metric rates him as elite, but it's fair to say he was not the big liability with the leather that I expected him to be.
The Reds declined Cabrera's option, but remain interested in bringing him back at a reduced rate. However, given the strong performance of the Reds in 2010, it's probably time to completely embrace the younger talent. There is little to nothing to be gained from players like O-Cab, especially with the capable Paul Janish and Zack Cozart in the organization. Older players like O-Cab are nothing more than expensive security blankets for GMs, as they aren't going to provide legitimate upgrades in production, but the name recognition gives the appearance of improvement. For some reason, fans are placated by an acquisition like O-Cab and become less critical than they would be if the production was generated by an internal option lacking such name recognition (i.e. Paul Janish).
Overall, O-Cab disappointed on offense and surprised on defense. Regardless, the overall result was rather uninspiring. For an organization renowned for its shortstop play, O-Cab's 2010 season was hardly a memorable data point.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Courtesy of Baseball America, here is the Elias Free Agent Compensation Rankings:
"Players who rank in the top 20 percent of their position group (as determined by a statistical formula laid out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement) are designated as Type A free agents, and those who rate in the 21-40 percent bracket are designated as Type B. In order to receive compensation for a Type A or B free agent, the player's former team must offer him arbitration by the Nov. 23 deadline. The player also must sign a major league contract with his new club.
Type A free agents bring back the signing team's first-round pick and a supplemental first-rounder as compensation, while Type B free agents produce only the sandwich pick. Clubs that finished in the bottom half of the major league standings have their first-rounders protected from compensation, and teams also can't lose a consolation pick for failure to sign a draftee from the previous year. If a team signs multiple Type A free agents, the club that lost the higher-ranking player gets the better choice.
Below are the potential Type A and B compensation free agents by position, listed in order of their statistical ranking."
Potential Type A Compensation Free Agents
Catchers: Victor Martinez (Bos), A.J. Pierzynski (CWS), Ramon Hernandez (Cin), Bengie Molina (Tex).
First Basemen: Paul Konerko (CWS), Adam Dunn (Was), Derrek Lee (Atl)
Second Basemen: None.
Third Basemen: Adrian Beltre (Bos), Miguel Tejada (SD).
Shortstops: Derek Jeter (NYY).
Outfielders: Jayson Werth (Phi), Carl Crawford (TB), Magglio Ordonez (Det), Manny Ramirez (CWS).
Designated Hitters: Vladimir Guerrero (Tex).
Starting Pitchers: Cliff Lee (Tex), Andy Pettitte (NYY), Carl Pavano (Min), Jorge de la Rosa (Col).
Relief Pitchers: Rafael Soriano (TB), Mariano Rivera (NYY), Matt Guerrier (Min), Scott Downs (Tor), Dan Wheeler (TB), Jason Frasor (Tor), Frank Francisco (Tex), Grant Balfour (TB), Arthur Rhodes (Cin).
Potential Type B Compensation Free Agents
Catchers: John Buck (Tor), Miguel Olivo (Tor), Jason Varitek (Bos), Yorvit Torrealba (SD), Gerald Laird (Det), Rod Barajas (LAD).
First Basemen: Lance Berkman (NYY), Carlos Pena (TB), Mike Lowell (Bos), Adam LaRoche (Ari), Aubrey Huff (SF).
Second Basemen: Orlando Hudson (Min), David Eckstein (SD).
Third Basemen: Felipe Lopez (Bos).
Shortstops: Orlando Cabrera (Cin), Juan Uribe (SF).
Outfielders: Brad Hawpe (TB), Scott Podsednik (LAD).
Designated Hitters: Johnny Damon (Det), Hideki Matsui (LAA).
Starting Pitchers: Jon Garland (SD), Javier Vazquez (NYY), Hiroki Kuroda (LAD), Kevin Millwood (Bal), Kevin Correia (SD).
Relief Pitchers: Jon Rauch (Min), Koji Uehara (Bal), Brian Fuentes (Min), Kevin Gregg (Tor), Joaquin Benoit (TB), Pedro Feliciano (NYM), Octavio Dotel (Col), Trevor Hoffman (Mil), Kerry Wood (NYY), Randy Choate (TB), J.J. Putz (CWS), Jesse Crain (Min), Aaron Heilman (Ari), Chad Durbin (Phi), Chad Qualls (TB).