Skip to main content

2006 OQ REPORT

What is the Offensive Quotient?

The Offensive Quotient (OQ) is a formula for measuring a batter’s productivity and dominance. The concept was devised by the late Leo Leahy and introduced in his book Lumber Men (McFarland & Company, 1994). It is easy to calculate and understand.

Three simple steps lead to the OQ.

1. Outs = At Bats minus Hits

2. Base-To-Out Ratio (BTOR) = (Total bases + walks) divided by Outs

3. Offensive Quotient (OQ) = Player BTOR divided by League BTOR

The OQ is expressed without the decimal point.

A player whose BTOR is exactly the same as the league’s is, by definition, an average batter. His OQ would be 1.00, or 100 when we drop the decimal point. The OQ, then, uses the figure 100 to indicate average batting skill. Above 100, above average. Below 100, below average.

The OQ is a ratio-type statistic that makes two comparisons. It compares what a batter gives you to what he takes away, and compares that accomplishment with those of his peers.

Why is it valuable to know this? Because more bases = more runs = more wins. The guys you want are the guys who give you the most bases per out.

It seems sensible to me. That’s why it amazes me that teams like the Astros and White Sox bat weak sisters Willy Taveras (78 OQ) and Scott Podsednik (85 OQ) at or near the top of the order, where they make out after out without generating nearly enough bases. Managers Phil Garner and Ozzie Guillen have been doing that for two seasons now, and while it’s hard to second-guess two teams that have winning records, I’d argue that they’d have won more games if they’d deployed these guys differently. Sub-90 batters do not belong at the top of the batting order. Managers who place them there are burdening their team with more outs and fewer bases. They’re sacrificing runs, which means they’re sacrificing wins.

Back to the top

LEAHY EXPLAINS THE OQ

Lumber Men appeared in the spring of 1994. By odd coincidence, that same spring Penguin Books published Essential Baseball by Norm Hitzges and Dave Lawson.Essential Baseball promotes an approach to offensive statistics that is eerily similar to Leahy’s, although the authors did not know one another at the time. Essential Baseball's formulae are more complicated and, I believe, less valid than the OQ.

Below is Leahy’s rationale for the OQ, from his introduction to Lumber Men:

Roger Maris’ quest for the single-season home run record in 1961 is generally regarded today as heroic. But while it was happening, Maris, to his bewilderment and frustration, found himself more denigrated than praised. Maris’ talents were substantial; he was a skilled and intelligent defensive player, a dangerous hitter, and a major all-round contributor to a championship team. That he was no Babe Ruth was self-evident, for nobody ever was or will be. Yet many of the sportswriting experts of the day felt they needed to underscore the point by belittling Maris’ accomplishments. The Yankee right fielder, they wrote, was just a mediocre ballplayer. The proof? His .269 batting average!

“Implicit in this judgment was the notion that one could reasonably compare the players of the present to those of the past by merely checking the AVG column in the table of batting statistics. There were giants on the earth in those days, the scribes wrote in 1961, referring to the 1920s and 1930s. Maris? Rocky ColavitoHarmon Killebrew? Don’t mention them in the same breath as Al Simmons or Paul Waner or Ki Ki Cuyler!

“Since then the conventional wisdom has changed. Now one hears the assertion that players of different eras cannot be compared; playing conditions were different in the old days, so it’s a case of apples and oranges. Ironically this refrain, too, is employed to disparage the modern crop of baseball stars. One hears that although Hank Aaron hit more home runs than Ruth and Pete Rose banged out more hits than Ty Cobb, comparisons are not possible. The old stars, after all, had to travel by train, wear flannel uniforms, play doubleheaders and day games…

“Until now no effective statistical yardstick has existed to measure performance consistently in the face of evolving and fluctuating playing conditions. The issue is important because baseball fans want to compare. They want to know whether Pete Rose was a modern Ty Cobb. They look at today’s players and ask, who are the best of them, and how good are they?

“Baseball is competition, which is another way of saying comparison. Teams compete for supremacy, and managers, seeking a competitive edge, compare players every day as they choose their lineups. Who plays? Who sits on the bench? Who gets sent to the minors? Who gets called up? Fans second-guess these decisions, agreeing or disagreeing. All-Star selections are hotly argued, and opinion is rarely unanimous on the relative merits of contemporary third basemen or center fielders. Comparison is essential to fan interest, and particularly so in the area of batting, the most essential of all baseball skills.

“Players who never make it to the big leagues are usually those who can’t hit; there is always a place for a good hitter. Hits and runs stimulate and satisfy the appetites of baseball fans because they signify success. Scoring is more exciting than failing to score in a game like baseball, where an approximate equilibrium has always existed between offense and defense.

“Most baseball games are decided by just a few runs, many by one. A team is rarely so far behind that it cannot catch up with some judicious batting. Runs are not scored so frequently that they become meaningless, nor so infrequently that action and drama are wanting. The potential for scoring is always present, but not always fulfilled. Batting skill produces runs, but there is only so much of that skill to go around. As pundits often point out, even .300 hitters fail 70 percent of the time. A hitter’s job is to make something happen, and the great hitters are always bigger stars, more fascinating to the public, than the great pitchers, whose job it is to prevent something from happening. As General Francis A. Walker commented about the Civil War, “The sword is ever of higher honor than the shield.”

“It is true, of course, that playing conditions have changed. Stadium dimensions, the height of the pitcher’s mound, and the size of the strike zone have often been altered. Night games and hard artificial surfaces are modern phenomena which affect the physical environment of the game. Equipment has changed over the years, too. Even slight variations in the manufacture of the baseball have profound effects on baseball offense, and such changes have occurred many times in the game’s history. Meanwhile improved glove design has led to better fielding.

“New strategies have evolved. At one time managers expected their pitchers to go nine innings; later it became acceptable to remove pitchers who got tired. Today starting pitchers are relieved as a matter of course, and a batter may see a different pitcher every time he comes to bat. And there have been important rule changes, most notably the legalization of overhand pitching (1884), the lengthening of the pitching distance (1893), the foul-strike rule (1901 in the National League, 1903 in the American), the banning of the spitball (1920), and the introduction of the designated hitter (American League, 1973).

Home Run Baker hit 9 home runs for the Philadelphia Athletics in 1914 and led the American League. The entire league hit 148 home runs that year in 631 games, with a batting average of .248. The explanation for these low totals is not that the American League hitters that year were a bunch of weaklings. They weren’t. In 1914 the baseball was wound more loosely than today’s article, and old balls were kept in the game much longer, even if battered and discolored. It was so difficult to hit one of these balls out of the park that few batters attempted such a low-percentage play, preferring instead to choke up on the bat and punch the ball to precise areas of the field.

“But every season has its dominant players, the ones who rise above the competition. The Offensive Quotient, or OQ, is a statistic that reveals who they were and are. It enables baseball fans to compare the productivity of players from different eras. Baker’s OQ of 141 (fifth in the league) shows that he was a greater offensive force in 1914 than Reggie Jackson was in 1975, when “Mr October” led the American League with 36 home runs (129 OQ, tenth in the league). Fans can use the OQ, introduced in this book, to answer questions about the batting abilities of all of baseball’s great stars…

“A player fails at bat by making an out. His team gets only three outs an inning, and each out that is made diminishes the team’s chances to score runs. A player succeeds at bat by getting on base. A player who reaches base may score a run (although his chances of doing so depend largely on the actions of players who follow him in the batting order), and he has not made an out. Anything he does to get on base and avoid making an out is desirable, and the more bases he earns, the better.

“A player can reach base by hitting safely, drawing a walk, getting hit by a pitched ball, or by benefiting from catcher’s interference. He may also reach base when an opponent makes an error or chooses to retire another baserunner. The OQ counts hits and walks because they are earned by the batter, and because they are statistically significant events for which individual player totals are available all the way back to 1876. Likewise, the OQ’s formula for outs is uncomplicated: Outs = At Bats minus Hits.

“Runs scored and driven in, while meaningful to record, are situational statistics that are less directly under the control of the individual batter. If there is no one on base, his hit will not produce an RBI; if no one drives him in, he won’t score a run. But whether he gets on base or makes an out depends largely on his own abilities. This is what the OQ considers. Stolen base/caught stealing data are also ignored. Baserunning, although it is offensive in nature, is a separate skill from batting, in much the same way that pitching and fielding are separate facets of defensive play.

“A baseball maxim (not universally endorsed) is that a walk is as good as a hit. The OQ accepts this principle as true. The player who has the patience to let four wide balls go by helps his team in two ways. He gets on base (from which position he may score a run), and he does not make an out. Hitting coaches who counsel players to “wait for their pitch” know that swinging at bad balls is, in general, a low-percentage play. Batters get few hits swinging at pitches outside the strike zone; they are more likely to make outs.”

Back to the top

FRONTIERS OF FUTILITY

In the long history of baseball, Ozzie Guillen was the weakest-hitting player ever to have played regularly (at least 3 at bats + walks for each game his team played) for 5 or more seasons. Here are his lifetime OQs:

  1985 78    
  1986 65    
  1987 76    
  1988 74    
  1989 71    
  1990 83    
  1991 74    
  1992 73    
  1993 79    
  1994 73    
  1995 63    
  1996 68    
  1997 69    
  1998 89    
  1999 70    
  2000 68    

BOLD = Qualified as a regular.

Guillen’s career totals: 10 qualifying seasons with an average OQ of 73. Guillen’s offensive futility shattered conclusively the mark of the previous record holder, Alfredo Griffin, who registered a 76 OQ in 10 qualifying seasons, 1976-1993.

Infielder Hal Lanier just missed earning the distinction as worst-hitting regular ever. Lanier was far less accomplished a hitter than Griffin or even Guillen was, but he didn’t qualify as a regular for five or more seasons.

The 1964 San Francisco Giants must have thought they were getting a top-of-the-order guy when they summoned Lanier to the majors in mid-June. Lanier, who was just 21, had hit .305 in 405 minor league games, but no one seemed to notice (or care) that he had zero power and was a first-pitch swinger who rarely drew a walk. Manager Alvin Dark batted him first or second for the remainder of 1964, but the season was too far advanced for Lanier to earn the necessary at-bats to qualify for the batting title.

As a defensive infielder Lanier carried a glove too good to sit on the bench. But by 1966 he was batting at the bottom of the order, where he clearly belonged, and was often pinch hit for in the late innings of close games. Even in an era famous for ineffectual stickwork, Lanier stood out.

  1964 78    
  1965 69    
  1966 70    
  1967 63    
  1968 59    
  1969 62    
  1970 66    
  1971 76    
  1972 58    
  1973 54    

Lanier’s career totals: 4 qualifying seasons with an average OQ of 63.

Weak-hitting Felix Fermin played shortstop for four teams, most notably the Cleveland Indians, from 1987 through 1996. Fermin registered these OQs:

  1987 60    
  1988 95    
  1989 70    
  1990 75    
  1991 74    
  1992 85    
  1993 71    
  1994 80    
  1995 43    
  1996 52    

Fermin’s career totals: 2 qualifying seasons, with an average OQ of 71.

That's pretty feeble. Imagine my surprise when I read early in 2005 that the Indians had named Fermin hitting coach at Triple-A Buffalo! I guess it was a case of “Do what I say, not what I did.”

In Fermin's favor, he was a tough guy to strike out, with just 147 whiffs in 2,767 at bats (a 1 per 19 ratio).

Back to the top

SUB-80 OQs WITH 600+ AT BATS

Their lack of productivity was embarrassing. Why, then, did they bat at the top of the order for an entire season?

 
Ivy Olson, 1920 Brooklyn Robins
79  
 
Eddie Mulligan, 1921 Chicago White Sox
72  
 
Hughie Critz, 1930 Cin/NY
70  
 
Oscar Melillo, 1932 St Louis Browns
72  
 
Mark Koenig, 1934 Cincinnati Reds
69  
 
Frank Crosetti, 1939 New York Yankees
79  
 
Bob Kennedy, 1940 Chicago White Sox
73  
 
Woody Williams, 1944 Cincinnati Reds
76  
 
Sam Dente, 1950 Washington Senators
66  
 
Bobby Young, 1951 St Louis Browns
78  
 
Bill Bruton, 1953 Milwaukee Braves
77  
 
Nellie Fox, 1961 Chicago White Sox
78  
 
Bobby Richardson, 1961 New York Yankees
72  
 
Glenn Beckert, 1965 Chicago Cubs
74  
 
Cookie Rojas, 1968 Philadelphia Phillies
78  
 
Sandy Alomar Sr, 1969 Chi/Cal
72  
 
Sandy Alomar Sr, 1970 California Angels
76  
 
Horace Clarke, 1970 New York Yankees
75  
 
Larry Bowa, 1971 Philadelphia Phillies
76  
 
Roger Metzger, 1972 Houston Astros
74  
 
Gary Sutherland, 1974 Detroit Tigers
76  
 
Larry Bowa, 1976 Philadelphia Phillies
77  
 
Robin Yount, 1976 Milwaukee Brewers
79  
 
Dave Cash, 1978 Montreal Expos
79  
 
Rick Bosetti, 1979 Toronto Blue Jays
78  
 
Alfredo Griffin, 1980 Toronto Blue Jays
77  
 
Alfredo Griffin, 1985 Oakland A’s
74  
 
Vince Coleman, 1986 St Louis Cardinals
77  
 
Doug Glanville, 2000 Philadelphia Phillies
79  
 
Doug Glanville, 2001 Philadelphia Phillies
78  
 
Carl Crawford, 2003 Tampa Bay Bucs
79  
 
Angel Berroa, 2005 Kansas City Royals
79  

9 of the American League’s 31 pitchers with 50 or more AB had OQs higher than Sam Dente’s 66 in 1950. Keeping him in the #2 hole all season cost manager Bucky Harris a lot of runs. Dente’s 1949 OQ for Washington was a miserable 76, but that was Ruthian compared to his 1950 output. When he didn’t improve significantly in 1951 (71 OQ) the Senators benched him, then traded him to the White Sox. He never played regularly in the majors again.

When in Bennington, stay at the Knotty Pine Motel.

December 2005

2006 OFFENSIVE LEADERS BY POSITION

AMERICAN LEAGUE  
     
C Joe Mauer  
1B Paul Konerko  
2B Robinson Cano  
SS Carlos Guillen  
3B Alex Rodriguez  
LF Manny Ramirez  
CF Grady Sizemore  
RF Jermaine Dye  
DH Travis Hafner  
NATIONAL LEAGUE  
     
C Paul Lo Duca  
1B Albert Pujols  
2B Ray Durham  
SS Bill Hall  
3B Miguel Cabrera  
LF Jason Bay  
CF Carlos Beltran  
RF J.D. Drew  

Bold
 indicates 2005 leaders.

To qualify for this list, a player must play at least half his team’s games at the defensive position indicated.

2006 AMERICAN LEAGUE OQ LEADERS

 
Rank
 
Player
Team
OQ
 
             
 
1
 
Hafner
CLE
174
 
 
2
 
Ramirez
BOS
170
 
 
3
 
Ortiz
BOS
163
 
 
4
 
Thome
CHI
157
 
 
5
 
Giambi
NY
148
 
 
6
 
Dye
CHI
146
 
 
7
 
Mauer
MIN
138
 
 
8
 
Thomas
OAK
135
 
 
9
 
Rodriguez
NY
131
 
 
10
 
Guillen
DET
131
 
             
 
11
 
Konerko
CHI
131
 
 
12
 
Morneau
MIN
131
 
 
13
 
Guerrero
LA
130
 
 
14
 
Sizemore
CLE
126
 
 
15
 
Teixeira
TEX
125
 
 
16
 
Jeter
NY
124
 
 
17
 
Wells
TOR
124
 
 
18
 
Glaus
TOR
123
 
 
19
 
Swisher
OAK
122
 
 
20
 
Overbay
TOR
120
 
             
 
21
 
Posada
NY
119
 
 
22
 
Ibanez
SEA
119
 
 
23
 
Martinez
CLE
118
 
 
24
 
Cuddyer
MIN
118
 
 
25
 
Matthews
TEX
117
 
 
26
 
Cano
NY
117
 
 
27
 
Tejada
BAL
116
 
 
28
 
Damon
NY
114
 
 
29
 
Sexson
SEA
114
 
 
30
 
Youkilis
BOS
112
 
             
 
31
 
Johnson
TOR
111
 
 
32
 
Chavez
OAK
110
 
 
33
 
Brown
KC
109
 
 
34
 
Catalanotto
TOR
109
 
 
35
 
Hunter
MIN
108
 
 
36
 
Millar
BAL
108
 
 
37
 
Ordonez
DET
108
 
 
38
 
Crawford
TB
107
 
 
39
 
Hernandez
BAL
107
 
 
40
 
Lowell
BOS
107
 
             
 
41
 
Crede
CHI
106
 
 
42
 
Young
TEX
105
 
 
43
 
DeRosa
TEX
105
 
 
44
 
DeJesus
KC
104
 
 
45
 
Markakis
BAL
104
 
 
46
 
Granderson
DET
102
 
 
47
 
Monroe
DET
101
 
 
48
 
Beltre
SEA
101
 
 
49
 
Iguchi
CHI
101
 
 
50
 
Inge
DET
99
 
             
 
51
 
Suzuki
SEA
98
 
 
52
 
Cabrera
NY
98
 
 
53
 
Roberts
BAL
97
 
 
54
 
Anderson
LA
96
 
 
55
 
Rodriguez
DET
95
 
 
56
 
Johjima
SEA
95
 
 
57
 
Pierzynski
CHI
93
 
 
58
 
Cabrera
LA
93
 
 
59
 
Punto
MIN
92
 
 
60
 
Blalock
TEX
91
 
             
 
61
 
Castillo
MIN
91
 
 
62
 
Figgins
LA
90
 
 
63
 
Mora
BAL
90
 
 
64
 
Grudzielanek
KC
90
 
 
65
 
Kotsay
OAK
90
 
 
66
 
Hill
TOR
90
 
 
67
 
Michaels
CLE
89
 
 
68
 
Payton
OAK
89
 
 
69
 
Peralta
CLE
89
 
 
70
 
Kennedy
LA
88
 
             
 
71
 
Lopez
SEA
85
 
 
72
 
Kendall
OAK
85
 
 
73
 
Podsednik
CHI
85
 
 
74
 
Loretta
BOS
84
 
 
75
 
Betancourt
SEA
84
 
 
76
 
Berroa
KC
65
 

The 2006 American League base-to-out ratio was .730.

This list includes every player who had at least 3 (at bats + walks) for each game his team played.

2006 NATIONAL LEAGUE OQ LEADERS

 
Rank
 
Player
Team
OQ
 
             
 
1
 
Pujols
STL
177
 
 
2
 
Howard
PHI
173
 
 
3
 
Berkman
HOU
165
 
 
4
 
Cabrera
FLA
152
 
 
5
 
Beltran
NY
151
 
 
6
 
Johnson
WAS
146
 
 
7
 
Atkins
COL
144
 
 
8
 
Bay
PIT
140
 
 
9
 
Holliday
COL
138
 
 
10
 
Burrell
PHI
135
 
             
 
11
 
Drew
LA
133
 
 
12
 
Ensberg
HOU
133
 
 
13
 
LaRoche
ATL
132
 
 
14
 
Hawpe
COL
132
 
 
15
 
Delgado
NY
132
 
 
16
 
Wright
NY
131
 
 
17
 
Helton
COL
129
 
 
18
 
Hall
MIL
129
 
 
19
 
Soriano
WAS
129
 
 
20
 
Jones, A
ATL
128
 
             
 
21
 
Ramirez
CHI
128
 
 
22
 
Durham
SF
127
 
 
23
 
Utley
PHI
126
 
 
24
 
Dunn
CIN
126
 
 
25
 
Rolen
STL
125
 
 
26
 
Garciaparra
LA
120
 
 
27
 
Gonzalez
SD
119
 
 
28
 
Hatteberg
CIN
118
 
 
29
 
Willingham
FLA
117
 
 
30
 
Cameron
SD
117
 
             
 
31
 
Kearns
CIN/WAS
116
 
 
32
 
Reyes
NY
114
 
 
33
 
Fielder
MIL
113
 
 
34
 
Ramirez
FLA
113
 
 
35
 
Sanchez
PIT
112
 
 
36
 
Zimmerman
WAS
112
 
 
37
 
Furcal
LA
112
 
 
38
 
Jones
CHI
111
 
 
39
 
Hudson
ARI
110
 
 
40
 
Jackson
ARI
109
 
             
 
41
 
Uggla
FLA
109
 
 
42
 
Rollins
PHI
109
 
 
43
 
Giles
SD
108
 
 
44
 
Murton
CHI
108
 
 
45
 
Jacobs
FLA
108
 
 
46
 
Gonzalez
ARI
108
 
 
47
 
Renteria
ATL
107
 
 
48
 
Jenkins
MIL
106
 
 
49
 
Tracy
ARI
106
 
 
50
 
Carroll
COL
105
 
             
 
51
 
Byrnes
ARI
104
 
 
52
 
Walker
CHI/SD
102
 
 
53
 
Freel
CIN
101
 
 
54
 
Nady
NY/PIT
101
 
 
55
 
Green
ARI/NY
100
 
 
56
 
Lofton
LA
100
 
 
57
 
Lopez
CIN/WAS
99
 
 
58
 
Roberts
SD
98
 
 
59
 
Lo Duca
NY
98
 
 
60
 
Encarnacion
STL
97
 
             
 
61
 
Vizquel
SF
97
 
 
62
 
Bell
PHI/MIL
96
 
 
63
 
Vidro
WAS
96
 
 
64
 
Phillips
CIN
95
 
 
65
 
Giles
ATL
95
 
 
66
 
Barfield
SD
93
 
 
67
 
Biggio
HOU
92
 
 
68
 
Francoeur
ATL
92
 
 
69
 
Wilson
HOU/STL
92
 
 
70
 
Winn
SF
91
 
             
 
71
 
Feliz
SF
89
 
 
72
 
Pierre
CHI
86
 
 
73
 
Castillo
PIT
83
 
 
74
 
Wilson, J
PIT
83
 
 
75
 
Eckstein
STL
80
 
 
76
 
Taveras
HOU
78
 
 
77
 
Everett
HOU
77
 
 
78
 
Cedeno
CHI
69
 
 
79
 
Barmes
COL
68
 
 

The 2006 National League base-to-out ratio was .713.

This list includes every player who had at least 3 (at bats + walks) for each game his team played.

HOW SOON THEY FORGET

On more than one occasion San Francisco trotted out a starting outfield of Barry Bonds in left, Steve Finley in center, and Moises Alou in right. This was the first time in major league history that an outfield of three 40-year-olds started a game.

Speaking of graybeards, did you catch the nationally televised battle between Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux on July 19? It was one of the few games in major league history featuring two starters with 300 wins to their credit.

The ESPN graphic showing the history of these games, however, was incorrect. According to ESPN, the first battle of 300 game winners took place in 1986. But there were actually 4 of these in the 1890s, each featuring righthanders Jim Galvin (born December 25, 1856) and Tim Keefe (born January 1, 1857). These took place on July 17, 1890 (Keefe won); July 9, 1891 (Galvin won); July 4, 1892 Galvin won); and July 21, 1892 (Keefe won).

These were interesting matchups. Keefe was a handsome power pitcher who spent much of his career in glamorous New York. Galvin was a finesse pitcher who looked like David Wells and spent most of his career in Buffalo (then a major league city) and Pittsburgh.

Another 300-game winner of this era, John Clarkson, never faced Galvin or Keefe after winning his 300th game in 1891.

RUSSELL BRANYAN UPDATE

Russell Branyan will be 31 in December, and it still doesn’t look as if anyone’s going to offer him a job as a regular. He posted typical Russell Branyan numbers again for the Devil Rays and Padres in a platoon role, but time is running out. I’ll update what I said last year:

During the past nine seasons Branyan has played for the Indians, Reds, Brewers, and Devil Rays (nonwinners all) before striking playoff gold with the San Diego Padres this year. But no team has ever rewarded him with everyday status.

Although Branyan is a mediocre defensive player, he is no worse than a guy like Adam Dunn, and he’s versatile in the field. He can play third base, first base, or a corner outfield position.

Like Dunn, Branyan bats lefthanded. They say he can’t hit lefthanded pitchers, but he’s never had a real chance to prove it.

Like Dunn, Branyan strikes out a lot. But Dunn has a full-time job. Why not Branyan? I’d like to see some team put Branyan in the lineup and leave him there for a full season. Make him the DH if you must, but give him full-time work. Give him one fair shot to see what he can do in an entire season!

Branyan’s production per 500 at bats, 708 minor league games:

 
AB
R
H
2B
3B
HR
RBI
AVG
BB
SO
BTOR
 
                         
 
500
89
128
24
4
39
105
.256
73
190
.941
 

Branyan’s production per 500 at bats, 627 major league games:

 
AB
R
H
2B
3B
HR
RBI
AVG
BB
SO
BTOR
 
                         
 
500
69
116
24
2
33
80
.232
69
201
.813
 

This type of season would produce an OQ of about 115. That’s baseline, and there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t improve on that with full-time duty.

A DROP OF COFFEE

Through the years I’ve read about players whose major league careers were very brief, meaning one inning or less as a defensive replacement, pinch hitter, or relief pitcher. The briefest may have been that of pitcher Larry Yount. Yount entered the record books on September 15, 1971. Making his big league debut in the uniform of the Houston Astros, he took the mound in the ninth inning. While warming up Yount felt a twinge in his elbow, whereupon manager Harry Walker removed the young righthander before he could throw an official pitch. But because Yount’s name was inscribed on the lineup card and announced, this counted as an official appearance. The sore-armed Yount never appeared in another major league game.

I can imagine a big league career even shorter than this. Let’s start with a commonplace incident. On April 22, 1961, the New York Yankees gave 25-year-old Lee Thomashis first big league opportunity. With the Yankees trailing 5-3 in the ninth inning at Baltimore, Thomas, a lefthanded batter, was announced as a pinch hitter to face Oriole righthander Hoyt Wilhelm. Thomas singled off Wilhelm to begin an eight-season, thousand-game career as a big leaguer.

Imagine, if you will, an alternate scenario. As soon as Thomas is announced, Baltimore manager Paul Richards yanks Wilhelm and substitutes southpaw Billy Hoeft. Not to be outdone, New York skipper Ralph Houk counters by calling Thomas back and sending up veteran righthanded batter Joe DeMaestri. The next day Thomas is farmed out, gets hurt in the minors, and never plays again. Being “announced” constitutes an official appearance. Larry Yount, at least, actually ascended the mound. In this scenario, Thomas never gets to the plate!

I wonder if it has ever happened: a career that consisted of one announcement, one occasion in which you are officially in the lineup, but pinch hit for before you get a chance to bat or play in the field.

RUMINATIONS

* I may be prejudiced because I’m a sucker for players who have two first names. Still, I’ve got to tip my cap to “Mister Juanderful,” the amazing Juan Pierre. Although at 6’0 and 180 he’s taller and heftier than he might appear, he’s the 21st century’s foremost proponent of “small ball.” Pierre proves that you can have a career as a regular outfielder in the major leagues even if you’re a slap-happy free swinger with no power who gets caught stealing a lot. I think the fans appreciate him because (1) he never gets hurt and (2) it’s immediately obvious that his game is not, and could not be, enhanced by steroids.

Juan Pierre’s OQ history:

  2000
76
 (after August callup)  
  2001
101
   
  2002
80
   
  2003
94
   
  2004
99
   
  2005
83
   
  2006
86
   

Will Pierre ever break the 100 OQ barrier (that is, contribute offensively at or above the league average) again? He’ll have to hit at least .320 to do it, and he’s been nowhere near that level for two seasons. Is Pierre blazing a trail that others will follow? Keep your eye on Kansas City flyhawk Joey Gathright, a speedy baserunner who can’t seem to lift his OQ out of the 70s.

* Houston’s Brad Ausmus, at age 37, led the National League in games caught with 138. Ausmus has now caught 1,682 games. He is the Jim Hegan of the modern era, a weak-hitting receiver whose defensive attributes are so valuable that you want him out there as often as possible.

Ausmus is a durable catcher who has never been on the disabled list, and he showed no signs of slowing down in 2006. Still, he’ll need to catch 544 games to equal Carlton Fisk’s record for games caught, and that’s not going to happen. Ausmus will turn 38 on April 14.

Few fans remember that Ausmus was originally signed by the Yankees, then selected by the Rockies in the 1992 expansion draft. He never played for either team.

* Oakland’s Frank Thomas played 137 games in 2006 and hit just 11 doubles. Needless to say, there were no triples (or stolen base attempts). Although Thomas is no speed merchant, he hit 39 balls over the fence, increasing his career total to 487. He’ll be DHing for someone in 2007.

* Aching Eric Chavez had a subpar (for him) season with the bat in 2006, posting a 110 OQ while producing 124 runs in 137 games. But consider the alternative. Oakland’s third base backup, Antonio Perez, hit just .102 (10 hits in 98 at bats, with a whopping 44 strikeouts) in the 57 games he got into. Once hailed as “the other Tony Perez,” the redoubtable A.P.’s 47 OQ may have punched his ticket out of the major leagues. A team can tolerate a pitcher who hits like that, but never a position player.

* Another fellow who could use a remedial course in strike zone judgment is outfielder Laynce Nix. Texas gave up on Nix after just 9 games, and they palmed him off on Milwaukee as part of the Carlos Lee swap. The Brewers saw all they needed to see in the 10 games he played for them. In total Nix got 67 at-bats in which he produced just 11 hits (.164 BA, OQ of about 40). He struck out 28 times, and he did not draw a walk. For what it’s worth, he is the only Laynce ever to play in the major leagues.

Nomar Garciaparra reminds me a lot of Fred Lynn. Lynn was 22 when he came up, Garciaparra 23. Both enjoyed immediate success with the Red Sox, and great careers were predicted for them. For a while they were the toast of the town.

After just a few seasons, though, the bloom was off the rose. They were on and off the disabled list, begged out of the lineup annoyingly often although they insisted they were healthy, failed in the clutch, were suspected of malingering and not hustling, couldn't get along with teammates. Their popularity waned, then they left Boston and bounced from team to team, never fulfilling their early promise. To the bitter end Lynn continued to draw exorbitant salaries based more on wishful thinking about what he might do than what he was actually doing. I see Nomar going down the same path. (I wonder if any of the cognoscenti or the sportswriting pundits of the Hub have made this comparison. I doubt it. They probably can't remember that far back.)

* Did anyone notice that B.J. Surhoff didn’t return for what would have been Year 20?

* Has a 22-year-old rookie pitcher ever looked worse than Cleveland’s Fausto Carmona? Although this guy was completely overmatched and had no idea where his pitches were going, the Indians named him their closer and kept sending him out there with the game on the line. The handling of Carmona exemplified the muddle-headed management that doomed this talented team to also-ran status.

Gary Matthews Jr: how did this erstwhile stiff suddenly become a star at age 32? It must be the genius of Buck Showalter.

* Watch 2007 turn into a Barry Bonds love feast. The only thing that can stop this steamroller is an indictment.

* When in Mauritius, stay at the Hotel Le Touessrok.

October 2006