|
|
|
|
 |
| MLB |
|
Scores Schedules Standings Statistics Transactions Injuries: AL | NL Players Offseason moves Free Agents Message Board Minor Leagues MLB Stat Search MLB en espaņol Clubhouses |
| Sport Sections |
|
|
| Monday, December 4 | |||||
| November Archives ESPN.com | |||||
| FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17 I know that Mike Piazza was a viable MVP candidate, but my thumbnail analysis, conducted with all the accuracy of Florida vote-counting, suggests that he wasn't any more valuable than Jeff Kent or Barry Bonds. So for the sake of argument, I'm going to focus on those latter two, who finished one-two in the balloting. If you just look at the percentages, Bonds clearly was the more productive hitter this past season:
OBP Slug OPS
Bonds .440 .688 1128
Kent .424 .596 1020
Bonds obviously has the edge here, but his OPS advantage is tempered just a bit by the "fact" that on-base percentage is somewhat more important than slugging percentage.
OK, here's another one, which includes the stats that baseball writers still prefer (though some of them are making progress):
Games Avg HR RBI (Runs)
Bonds 143 .306 49 106 (129)
Kent 159 .334 33 125 (114)
Yes, I did include one statistic that baseball writers generally ignore -- runs scored. As I have argued many, many times, it's irrational to value a team-dependent power stat (RBI) but ignore a team-dependent on-base stat (runs). Kent has the edge in RBI, but that's balanced nicely by Bonds' edge in runs. And of course, this isn't coincidental, as Bonds and Kent batted three-four in the Giants' lineup.
As I'm sure you've noticed, the good fellows at Baseball Prospectus have been contributing material to this web site, and that makes me feel more comfortable about borrowing their methodology. I do understand that many of you won't trust that methodology, and I don't blame you. A healthy skepticism is a good thing. But I'll tell you that I trust their methodology, and that if you're curious, you can find the details of the methodology at BP's web site. And I'll tell you that it's complicated.
That said, below you can see how Bonds and Kent fared in a couple of the Baseball Prospectus stats: Adjusted Equivalent Average (AdjEqA) and Adjusted Runs Above Position (AdjRAP). In both cases, "Adjusted" means that the stats have been adjusted to account for the player's home ballpark. EqA sums up a hitter's statistics, then expresses them in a form that looks like batting average; that is, .300 is something of a benchmark. RAP describes the runs contributed to his team, above the average for a player at the same position.
Got all that? OK, below are Bonds and Kent's numbers, along with their National League ranks.
AdjEqA(Rk) AdjRAP (Rk)
Bonds .363 (2) 65.7 (1)
Kent .338 (6) 63.2 (2)
Now that's close. Bonds ranked No. 1 in Runs Above Position, Kent ranked No. 2.
A wash.
So why did Kent win? It's been written that Kent got a boost from his manager. As the Associated Press reported, "Chiefly because of the second baseman's RBI total and knack for clutch hits, manager Dusty Baker said Kent would have gotten his MVP vote, not Bonds, perhaps swaying voters."
As I mentioned above, it's silly to consider RBI but not runs. As for Kent's "knack for clutch hits," I do agree that it's important. Well, not the knack, because there's no evidence that such a thing exists. But certainly the hits, which most certainly do exist. And if one player hits better in the clutch than another, that counts.
However, I haven't seen the evidence for Kent as the better clutch hitter last season. In "close and late" situations, Kent batted .268 with a 735 OPS; in the same situations, Bonds batted .250 ... but with a 1040 OPS! In 68 such at-bats, he hit eight home runs!
And frankly, I don't give a damn what Dusty Baker says about the MVP. I do care what he thinks, but what he thinks is not necessarily what he says. Baker's job is not to ensure that his most valuable player is voted the Most Valuable Player. His job is to win baseball games, and he's going to say whatever he thinks will lead to winning baseball games. What's more, baseball managers (and players, and batboys, and writers) are myopic by nature. To paraphrase my friend Eddie Epstein, if you're interested in balanced perspective on a forest, you don't ask one of the trees.
And that's what Dusty Baker is: a tree. A BIG tree, but a tree nonetheless. Unfortunately, sportswriters talk to a lot of trees. And of course, sportswriters are obsessed with RBI.
All right, let me try to summarize all of this ... Bonds was the better hitter, on a per-game basis. In terms of season value, however, Bonds and Kent were almost exactly equal in value, as hitters. That's after adjusting for defensive position ... but does not consider defensive skill. I've not seen a good analysis of 2000 defense yet, but it's generally thought, at least by analysts, that Bonds is a better-than-average left fielder, and Kent is a poorer-than-average second baseman.
So it stands to reason, doesn't it, that if they're equally valuable as hitters after adjusting for position, and Bonds is the more valuable fielder, relative to others at his position, then Bonds is the better, more valuable player?
Ah, but there are the games. Kent started 157 games, and thus was essentially available whenever Dusty Baker wanted him. Barry Bonds started 138 games, which means that he was essentially removed from Baker's repertoire for three weeks' worth of games.
When Bonds couldn't play, left field was manned by Felipe Crespo (11 games), Armando Rios (6), Marvin Benard (4) and Terrell Lowery (3).
Rios is a good hitter, the other three or not. So the Giants presumably suffered a significant dropoff when Bonds wasn't available. For this reason, I call this race too close to call. So you know what? Believe it or not, I'm falling back on Dusty Baker's opinion. It might be 99 percent worthless, but this time that one percent is enough to convince me.
Just a few words on the American League voting, since this column is already something of a monster ...
I don't really feel like arguing that Jason Giambi didn't deserve the AL MVP. He was the best of his type, which means he deserves the award more than Carlos Delgado or (especially) Frank Thomas. That said, I'm not sure that I would have voted for Giambi. Just as Kent and Bonds were very close, with Kent holding an edge in games played, Giambi and Alex Rodriguez were very close, with Giambi holding the edge in games played.
For me, though, the argument hinges on the calendar. If you think that Giambi's September performance should result in a substantial amount of "extra credit," then Giambi's your man. If you think that one month counts pretty much the same as any other month, then Rodriguez is the clear choice.
Actually, I'd have voted for Alex, for another reason. If he had missed the season, the Mariners would have been completely unable to replace him with a productive hitter. If Giambi had missed the season, I suspect that Billy Beane would have been able to find a quality hitter to play first base. So Alex is my guy, but Giambi certainly is a worthy MVP.
So the BBWAA did a pretty good job this year. Of the six major awards, I agree with them on five, or five-and-a-half if you count the Giambi/Rodriguez split. Congratulations, guys.
Finally, let me offer my semi-annual advice about not taking this stuff too seriously. Just because some percentage of 32 baseball writers think that Jeff Kent was the most valuable player in the National League, doesn't make it so. That argument was decided from April through September, even if many of us disagree on the winner. I used to get worked up about MVP and Cy Young awards, but frankly I don't get so worked up any more. Award voting by an insular band of middle-aged baseball writers is interesting, but it's not gospel. And for those of us who are not paid bonuses for winning those awards, the value in them lies in this, the debate. In this case it's the discussion that's truly interesting, rather than who actually ?wins.?
Personal note: This is my last column for a while, as I'm taking some vacation time to finish a book, which is due on my editor's desk exactly two weeks from today. So my next column will be published in this space on December 4, and I hope to see you then.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15My editor asked me to write a column about the MVPs today, but with his indulgence I'm going to wait until Friday, because maybe, just maybe, the BBWAA will get it right in the American League, and I won't have to explain why Frank Thomas should finish no higher than fourth or fifth in the balloting. No, today what I want to know is, who's the village idiot that thought Darryl Kile was the best pitcher in the National League? Kile won 69 percent of his decisions, which is damn good. Good enough, in fact, to rank fifth in the National League, behind Shawn Estes (71.4 percent), Scott Elarton (70.8) and Tom Glavine (70.0). Kile struck out 192 hitters, which is real good. Good enough, in fact, to rank ninth in the National League, behind Chan Ho Park (217), Javier Vazquez (196) and Pedro Astacio (193). Kile posted a 3.91 ERA this season, which is pretty good. Good enough, in fact, to rank 15th in the National League, behind Robert Person (3.63), Ryan Dempster (3.66) and Woody Williams (3.75). Kile recorded one shutout, which is good. Good enough, in fact, to tie him for ninth in the National League with 19 other pitchers, including Chris Holt, Todd Ritchie and Kent Bottenfield. Yes, I've been employing some disgusting tricks of the statistician. If I don't stop right now, I'm going to get a bunch of e-mail messages about lies and damn lies and statistics, and a man with one foot in a bucket of hot water and the other foot in a bucket of cold water. Trust me, I've already heard them all. So no more tricks, no more fooling around, no more attempts at cleverness. Here's the guy who deserved to win the Cy Young, and here's a guy who didn't:
W-L Pct(Rnk) ERA(Rnk) K (Rnk)
Randy 19-7 .731 (1) 2.64 ( 2) 347 (1)
Darryl 20-9 .690 (5) 3.91 (15) 192 (9)
Granted, Busch Stadium has been playing as a better hitter's park than has
Bank One Ballpark. And granted, Kile pitched for a better team than did
Johnson, and he did reach the magical mark of 20 victories.
But with all due respect to the parties involved, (1) Darryl Kile was
nowhere near the best pitcher in the National League, and (2) whichever
writer voted for Kile as the best pitcher should be summarily
stripped of all baseball-related duties, and sent to the basement to write
obituaries and crop reports until the Cubs win a World Series.
And now, for something completely different ...
This is completely off the beam, but next time you're thinking about how
wonderful "the good ol' days" were, take a few minutes and watch ESPN
Classic. Every so often during the baseball season, I'll get an e-mail
message from someone who wants to complain about the current state of
baseball uniforms. Specifically, the complaints are usually related to the
habit teams have of wearing solid colors when they're playing road games.
Well, Monday night I watched Game 7 of the 1979 World Series, and you ain't
ever seen such a godawful display as that.
The Pirates were on the road, wearing would
you believe, canary-yellow pullover jerseys, and black pants held up by
elastic (and striped!) waistbands rather than belts? You younger fans
probably think that ol' Rob is pulling your leg and/or yanking your chain,
but ol' Rob isn't clever enough to make up stuff like this.
And the Orioles looked even sillier.
No kidding. They were the home team with orange tops and -- this is the ugliest thing on the field
-- tri-colored caps: orange bill, white front panel, black back panel. And
of course, the cap sports a ridiculous cartoon version of what I guess is
supposed to be a Baltimore Oriole, which in real life is one of the more
stunning birds you'll find on the East Coast. I would guess that in 1979,
the only thing sillier looking than an Orioles cap was Don Stanhouse and his
massive perm parked under an Orioles cap.
As if the uniforms weren't bad enough, do you know who was in the booth for
the 1979 World Series? As much as some of us like to complain about Joe Buck
and (especially) Tim McCarver, you'd be thrilled with both of them if you'd
heard Keith Jackson and (gasp) Howard Cosell calling a World Series
game.
The World Series?
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13Today I'd like to tell you some things about some current free agents that you might already know. Call it Rob's Idiosyncratic Guide to 2001 Free Agents (Part 1). Or call it something else, since you're the one who's reading the thing. As everyone this side of Mars knows only too well, Alex Rodriguez is the plum of an impressive group. As it happens, recently I referenced, with some degree of amusement, a report suggesting that Rodriguez might well finish his career with 772 home runs. In response, I received a few messages of the following gist:
Rowen Bell
Avg Max Min
Gonzalez 136 154 115
Hammonds 105 123 71
Ramirez 143 152 118
Gwynn 108 149 36
The first column describes the average number of games each has played, per
season, since 1996. The second column lists each player's high in games
played, and the third lists their low in games played, over that same span.
Hammonds supposedly turned down what I would consider a hefty offer from the
Rockies, as apparently his agent, Jeff Moorad, believes that some other team
will really cough up the dough. Perhaps this is something of an IQ
test for general managers; if one of them does give Hammonds a crazy
contract, we can fairly assume that that particular general manager doesn't
have any idea what he's doing, and should be demoted to Assistant
Groundskeeper in all due haste.
The Padres offered Tony Gwynn $1 million for one season, and he might
actually be worth that much. Then again, he might not, based on the fact
that he played only 36 games last year. Of course, Gwynn spurned San Diego's
offer, which means some other team might be stuck with him.
What always amazes me about injury-prone players (in case I haven't already
made this clear) is that GMs are always willing to pay them as if they
played 160 games per season rather than 140. It's likely that both Ramirez
and Gonzalez will be paid like durable players, even though neither has
demonstrated the ability to avoid at least one trip to the DL annually.
And then of course there's Sandy Alomar (not pictured above), who played 132
games and won the Rookie of the Year award in 1990 ... and hasn't played as many
games in a season since. He's only played more than 100 games three times in
the last decade. Alomar's missed so much time, in fact, that it's unlikely
that GMs won't notice this one.
Do you know how well Mike Mussina pitched this year? True, he went 11-15.
Also true that his 3.79 ERA was the third highest of his career. But (1)
that same 3.79 ERA ranked third in the American League, and (2) Mussina led
the American League with 238 innings pitched. I believe that Mussina is
about as good as he's ever been, and I believe that he's got a significantly
better chance of earning a Hall of Fame plaque than Alex Rodriguez does of
hitting 772 home runs.
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10I might, by the end of this column, admit my folly, with the help of a kind reader who corrected me without getting nasty about it ...
Games OPS OW% EqA
Furcal 131 766 .599 .276
Payton 149 778 .493 .260
Meluskey 117 888 .692 .291
I should point out, as I failed to Wednesday, that Equivalent Average (EqA)
is park-adjusted. I should also point out that EqA does, to my satisfaction,
measure what it's supposed to measure: a player's offensive
contributions, including stolen bases.
Meluskey was, pretty obviously, the most productive hitter here. You can
talk about all those time that Furcal intimidated the defense with his
speed, but there's no way that makes up for 122 points of OPS, and 15 points
of Equivalent Average.
And the games? Well, Meluskey played 32 fewer games than Payton, but I don't
think many have argued that Payton should have been the Rookie of the Year.
Shoot, I haven't received a single e-mail message from an outraged Mets fan.
So let's focus on Meluskey vs. Furcal.
And Furcal played in 14 more games, a substantial difference. But as Tom has
sagely pointed out, 117 games for a catcher are not the same as 117 games
for a middle infielder (like Furcal). It is, I think we can all agree,
easier for a middle infielder to play 131 games than it is for a catcher to
play 131 games.
Or perhaps we can't agree. So here are some numbers ... I made a list of the
15 major leaguers who played the most games at catcher, and another list of
the 15 major leaguers who played the most games at shortstop (Furcal's
primary position).
The top 15 catchers averaged 126 games.The top 15 shortstops averaged 149 games. Fifteen shortstops played at least 140 games. Four catchers played at least 140 games. Suddenly, the difference between Furcal's 131 games and Meluskey's 117 games doesn't amount to much, does it. And if the analysis ended right here, I would have happily ordered up my plate of crow meat, and heartily endorsed Mitchell Wade Meluskey, of Yakima, Wash., as the National League's 2000 Rookie of the Year. But yesterday, the mails brought a shiny new copy of the best new baseball book that will come out before next spring: "STATS Major League Handbook 2001". (I write about the Handbook every November, so this time let me just tell you this: I don't know how any baseball fan with even a moderate interest in the numbers can survive without this book.) And when I looked up Meluskey, here's what I found: Pos: C-103; PH/PR-23; 3B-1 You see what I'm getting at? He only caught 103 games. And after flipping to the fielding stats on page 262, I find that Meluskey only started 88 games in the field. Furcal started 118 games, 30 more than Meluskey. By most accounts, Meluskey is a poor defensive player. Add everything up, and I stand firm in my belief that Furcal does deserve his Rookie of the Year award. Now, if we could just agree on how old he really is, we'd be able to figure out good he's going to be. Postcript: Interestingly, Furcal did not win the Internet Baseball Awards Rookie of the Year award, but neither did Meluskey. The IBA, voted on by people who read and write columns like mine, went to Rick Ankiel, with Furcal and Meluskey running two-three (followed by Pat Burrell and Jay Payton). WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8 They got 'em right this time. The Rookies of the Year, I mean. I suppose I could simply stop there, which would make this my shortest column ever. But where's the fun in that? Let's see why they're right, and let's start with the two position players in the National League who merited strong consideration. In addition to OPS, with which I'm sure you're familiar by now, I'm also listing Offensive Winning Percentage (OW%) and Equivalent Average (EqA). OW% purports to describe the winning percentage of a lineup populated by nine players with the stats in question (given an average pitching staff). EqA, championed by our friends at Baseball Prospectus, expresses a player's tangible offensive contributions in something that looks like batting average.
Games OPS OW% EqA
Furcal 131 766 .599 .276
Payton 149 778 .493 .260
These guys are fairly matched, with Payton posting a slightly higher OPS,
but Furcal doing better in the more sophisticated measures because of his
superior on-base percentage and his vastly superior value as a baserunner.
There are, of course, two other practical differences between the two.
One, Payton played 18 more games than Furcal did. Given both the Mets' lack
of outfield depth and the Braves' lack of infield depth, those 18 games
could have made a difference, though of course the Braves did finish
ahead of the Mets.
And two, Furcal, when he was healthy enough to play, probably did have more
defensive value than Payton, because of his ability to play both shortstop
and second base competently.
What I don't quite understand is how Furcal could receive 25 first-place
votes and 144 points overall, and Payton only one first-place votes and 37
points overall. The difference between them simply isn't that great, though
award voters typically ignore games played unless the disparity is obscene
(and not always then).
And of course, Payton didn't even finish second, that honor going to Rick
Ankiel, who was everyone's preseason favorite. All things -- that is, luck
-- being equal, Ankiel's your National League Rookie of the Year. He started
30 games, and posted a 3.50 ERA. That 3.50 ERA ranks eighth in the National
League, just behind Tom Glavine, and ahead of Darryl Kile and every other
St. Louis starter.
In the minds of the voters (I'm guessing), Ankiel's "problem" was
two-fold: (1) he couldn't work deep into many games due to
control problems, pitching only 175 innings, and (2) he didn't win
many games, only 11. (And yes, I do realize that there's a connection
between those things.)
According to one measure, a complicated fellow called Support Neutral Wins
Above Replacement (which is exactly what it sounds like), Ankiel ranks as the
12th-best starter in the National League. Was Rafael Furcal anywhere near
the 12th-best position player in the National League, or even the 24th best?
I don't think that he was.
Would Ankiel be the obvious choice if he'd won 15 games rather than 11? I
think that he would be.
But he didn't, and that's why I would have voted exactly as the voters
did: Furcal, Ankiel, Payton. But they would have been a lot closer in
my mind than they came out in the actual voting totals.
And you know what? The voters got the American League right, too. Not just
the winner, but one through three. It's probably never happened before, but
who knows, perhaps the writers really are getting smarter.
Kazuhiro Sasaki was the clear choice for AL Rookie of the Year. I'll be
the first to suggest that closers are generally overrated, due to the
relatively limited number of innings they pitch during the regular season
(October's another story). But Sasaki saved 37 games this season, and failed
to convert only three save chances. That's very good, and I think it's safe
to say that if Sasaki hadn't signed with the Mariners this season, they
wouldn't have reached the postseason.
That said, Sasaki is just a closer, and in many seasons those 37
saves wouldn't have been enough for me. This season, though, he didn't have
particularly stiff competition. Here are the other two candidates:
Games OPS OW% EqA
Long 138 788 .501 .267
Quinn 135 830 .558 .269
A big difference here between Offensive Winning Percentage and Equivalent
Average, and it's too early in the morning -- 5:15 a.m., and I'm still waiting
for Florida to finish counting -- to figure out why. I do think they're
close enough that the position difference -- Long plays center field (though
by most accounts, not particularly well), while Quinn plays left field like
a third-grader who's afraid of the baseball -- gives Long the edge.
But look at those stats. Neither of these guys threatened any records, and
neither of them deserved the award more than Sasaki.
Speaking of whom, some weeks ago I suggested that voters shouldn't hold
Sasaki's age and experience against him. The rules don't make any
distinction between a 22-year-old outfielder just up from the Texas League
and a 32-year-old closer just over from Japan's Central League, so I don't
think a voter should be making his own distinction. And I'm happy to report
that, apparently, most of them did not.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6The biggest story of the offseason will, of course, be the ultimate destination of a young shortstop named Alex Rodriguez. Shoot, it's been one of the biggest for months now, even when there wasn't anything, anything at all, to report. For the last seven months, the the second-most frequent question I've heard is, "Where is A-Rod going to end up?" (The most frequent question is, "They actually pay you to write this crap?") I'll tell you, today, what I've been telling everybody else who's asked me. You might want to sit down for this, because it's really going to rock your world ... Ready? I don't have any idea. What's more, I don't think anybody else does, either. Now, perhaps Rodriguez was misquoted. It does happen. But the following seems fairly straightforward: "I would like to sign with another team and help dethrone the Yankees -- they've won too much already. I like playing shortstop and I'm young (25). I want to play it until I'm 35, and then I'll study the possibility of being moved." Now, this doesn't leave much room for interpretation. He doesn't want to play for the Yankees, and even if he did want to play for the Yankees, he wouldn't shift to third base or some other position, in deference to Derek Jeter. Of course, if you announce to the world that you're not interested in the team with the greatest financial resources, you damage your negotiating position with the other teams. As a result, Scott Boras did some truly fancy backtracking yesterday, saying, "We think it was maybe a misunderstanding or something, he was talking about playing [the Yankees] in the American League Championship Series ... I spent five days with him on the subject. He hasn't dismissed any team." Sure, Scott. Whatever you say. And Alex is going to hit 772 home runs before he retires, too. (Boras has prepared a 50-page analysis of Rodriguez for teams to read as they decide how much money to pay him, and among the other predictions is the foolish suggestion that he will, indeed, hit 772 home runs. I suppose some people will read this and say, "Those damnable agents. Here goes this one again, stretching the truth to suit himself." Well, yeah. But this is what agents do. Does Boras really believe that Alex is going to hit more home runs than Hank Aaron? Probably not. But lawyers defend guilty clients every day of the week, and this really isn't all that different. More to the point, are any team owners stupid enough to believe that Alex is going to hit 772 home runs? It only takes one, my friends. It only takes one.) It's tough to compare teams because baseball has changed so much. You rely so much on speed and defense now. You really can't compare. Joe Torre said that we are one of the best teams in baseball and I agree.Now, a hefty percentage of you probably know that speed and defense is less important now than it's been in quite some time. So you have to wonder, why doesn't Jorge Posada know? I don't think he's a stupid man. Rather, I suspect that he's simply too close to the ground, so close that he lacks perspective. And this will, I hope, help you understand why I don't take everything uttered by real major leaguers as the absolute gospel. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3 The manager was fired twice, but was hired again on the grounds that he's a sound baseball man. A sound baseball man is anyone who's been fired twice.Those words were published in 1970, and I present them here in the interest of making a point, which is that the infamous "old-boy network," blamed in recent years for the lack of "minority" managers, ain't nothing new. (I put that word in quotes because I don't exactly know what it means. If someone would like to give me a precise definition of "minority," I'm all ears. But for the most part, I think it's time we stopped putting labels on people for the convenience of the media.) The old-boy network seems to have broken down, though. Of the six new managers hired this week, four have never managed in the major leagues. And of those four, three have never managed any team, anywhere. And the two who have managed before, Bob Boone and Larry Bowa, have managed just once. Just looking at the bios in the various media guides, Jim Tracy looks like the healthiest managerial timber. His credentials: As an ill man once said, "I have my good days, and I have my bad days." There have been more good days than bad days lately. Look one way, and there's Jonathan Mayo writing about OPS at Major League Baseball's official web site. Look another way, and there's the Baseball Prospectus crew spreading the sabermetrical word to parts near and far. It's on those good days that I wonder if I've become irrelevant, like an appendix or the Reform Party. And then I read something like this, about the Red Sox relieving hitting coach Jim Rice of his duties: The Red Sox hit .267 this year, the second worst average in the American League, even though Nomar Garciaparra hit .372 and led the AL in batting for the second straight season ... Rice became batting coach on Feb. 18, 1995. In 1997, the Red Sox led the majors with a .291 average, their highest since batting .302 in 1950 ... In 1998, their .280 average was third in the AL. That dropped to .278, seventh in the AL, in 1999.That story, from the Associated Press and posted right here at ESPN.com (among many other places), contains 430 words, 324 of them regarding Rice's firing and his stint as Red Sox batting coach (the other 106 are about Rice's playing career). Among those 324 words, batting average is referenced six times. Number of mentions of run production: zero. Number of mentions of slugging percentage: zero. Number of mentions of on-base percentage: zero. This is a wild pronouncement, but I would guess that batting average is less relevant now than it's ever been. While it's true that in 2000 the Red Sox ranked 13th in batting average and 12th in run production, it's also true that the Athletics ranked 11th in batting average and third in run production. And it's true that the Mariners ranked 12th in batting average and fourth in run production. No, the problem wasn't that the Red Sox ranked 13th in batting average. The problem was that the Red Sox ranked 12th in slugging percentage and 11th in on-base percentage. That's why they scored only 792 runs. So let's look at the important stats since Rice became Boston's hitting coach prior to the 1996 season. The table below lists the Red Sox' American League rank in the various categories:
OBP Slug Runs
1996 5 5 4
1997 4 3 4
1998 3 2 3
1999 7 6 9
2000 11 12 12
Three good years, then two poor ones.
Frankly, I believe that in most cases hitting coaches don't make much of a difference. That may sound like foolishness, but if you actually try to identify hitting coaches who consistently show positive results, you'll have a devil of a time.
Does that mean the Red Sox should simply keep Rice on the payroll in perpetuity? (Actually, they may well do that anyway; they just won't let him near their hitters on a regular basis.)
The common wisdom this past season, at least among the broadcast media in Boston, was that the Red Sox hitters weren't taking enough pitches, but instead were just going to the plate and taking their hacks. I saw close to 100 Red Sox games this season, and they certainly didn't look like a disciplined bunch to me.
But the fact is that the Red Sox drew 611 walks in 2000, fifth in the American League. The Red Sox drew 20 fewer walks than the World Champion Yankees, and 20 more than the American League Central champion White Sox.
So at least on a superficial level, patience doesn't seem to have been the problem.
The problem is that, aside from Nomar Garciaparra and Carl Everett, there weren't any championship-quality hitters in the lineup. You can bring back Charlie Lau from the dead, but if all you give him to work with is Mike Lansing and Jose Offerman and Troy O'Leary and Wilton Veras, he's going to turn around and head straight back to his peaceful afterlife.
|  | ||||