2009 OQ REPORT
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.
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 Colavito? Harmon 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.”
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).
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
- What is the Offensive Quotient?
- 1889 OQ Report
- 1994 OQ Report
- 1995 OQ Report
- 1996 OQ Report
- 1997 OQ Report
- 1998 OQ Report
- 1999 OQ Report
- 2000 OQ Report
- 2001 OQ Report
- 2002 OQ Report
- 2003 OQ Report
- 2004 OQ Report
- 2005 OQ Report
- 2006 OQ Report
- 2007 OQ Report
- 2008 OQ Report
- 2009 OQ Report
- 2010 OQ Report
- 2011 OQ Report
- 2012 OQ Report
- Baseball's All-Time Worst Hitter
- Base-Clearing Triples
- It Keeps Right On A-Hurtin
- The Greatest Cleveland Indian of Them All
- Walk-Off Walks
2009 OFFENSIVE LEADERS BY POSITION
AMERICAN LEAGUE | ||
C | Joe Mauer | |
1B | Mark Teixeira | |
2B | Ben Zobrist | |
SS | Jason Bartlett | |
3B | Alex Rodriguez | |
LF | Jason Bay | |
CF | Torii Hunter | |
RF | J.D. Drew | |
DH | Jason Kubel |
NATIONAL LEAGUE | ||
C | Brian McCann | |
1B | Albert Pujols | |
2B | Chase Utley | |
SS | Hanley Ramirez | |
3B | Mark Reynolds | |
LF | Ryan Braun | |
CF | Andrew McCutchen | |
RF | Brad Hawpe |
Bold indicates 2008 leaders.
To qualify for this list, a player must play at least half his team’s games at the defensive position indicated.
2009 AMERICAN LEAGUE OQ LEADERS
Rank
|
Player
|
Team
|
OQ
|
|||
1
|
Mauer
|
MIN |
161
|
|||
2
|
Zobrist
|
TAM |
144
|
|||
3
|
Youkilis
|
BOS |
141
|
|||
4
|
Rodriguez
|
NY |
139
|
|||
5
|
Teixeira
|
NY |
137
|
|||
6
|
Drew
|
BOS |
136
|
|||
7
|
Bay
|
BOS |
136
|
|||
8
|
Cabrera
|
DET |
136
|
|||
9
|
Lind
|
TOR |
132
|
|||
10
|
Morales
|
LA |
130
|
|||
11
|
Pena
|
TAM |
130
|
|||
12
|
Kubel
|
MIN |
129
|
|||
13
|
Swisher
|
NY |
128
|
|||
14
|
Morneau
|
MIN |
126
|
|||
15
|
Longoria
|
TAM |
126
|
|||
16
|
Matsui
|
NY |
125
|
|||
17
|
Young
|
TEX |
124
|
|||
18
|
Choo
|
CLE |
124
|
|||
19
|
Bartlett
|
TAM |
122
|
|||
20
|
Hunter
|
LA |
122
|
|||
21
|
Branyan
|
SEA |
122
|
|||
22
|
Overbay
|
TOR |
121
|
|||
23
|
Martinez
|
CLE/BOS |
121
|
|||
24
|
Jeter
|
NY |
121
|
|||
25
|
Damon
|
NY |
120
|
|||
26
|
Abreu
|
LA |
119
|
|||
27
|
Cruz
|
TEX |
119
|
|||
28
|
Cuddyer
|
MIN |
118
|
|||
29
|
Butler
|
KC |
117
|
|||
30
|
Cano
|
NY |
116
|
|||
31
|
Scott
|
BAL |
115
|
|||
32
|
Konerko
|
CHI |
115
|
|||
33
|
Pedroia
|
BOS |
112
|
|||
34
|
Suzuki
|
SEA |
111
|
|||
35
|
Figgins
|
LA |
111
|
|||
36
|
Roberts
|
BAL |
110
|
|||
37
|
Kinsler
|
TEX |
110
|
|||
38
|
Scutaro
|
TOR |
110
|
|||
39
|
Cust
|
OAK |
110
|
|||
40
|
Ortiz
|
BOS |
109
|
|||
41
|
Hill
|
TOR |
109
|
|||
42
|
Callaspo
|
KC |
109
|
|||
43
|
Span
|
MIN |
109
|
|||
44
|
Ordonez
|
DET |
109
|
|||
45
|
Dye
|
CHI |
108
|
|||
46
|
Sizemore
|
CLE |
108
|
|||
47
|
Crawford
|
TAM |
108
|
|||
48
|
Rivera
|
LA |
107
|
|||
49
|
Markakis
|
BAL |
106
|
|||
50
|
Granderson
|
DET |
105
|
|||
51
|
Cabrera
|
CLE |
105
|
|||
52
|
Byrd
|
TEX |
104
|
|||
53
|
Jones
|
BAL |
103
|
|||
54
|
DeJesus
|
KC |
102
|
|||
55
|
Ellsbury
|
BOS |
98
|
|||
56
|
Gutierrez
|
SEA |
98
|
|||
57
|
Aybar
|
LA |
97
|
|||
58
|
Kennedy
|
OAK |
97
|
|||
59
|
Cabrera
|
NY |
97
|
|||
60
|
Podsednik
|
CHI |
97
|
|||
61
|
Sweeney
|
OAK |
97
|
|||
62
|
Lopez
|
SEA |
96
|
|||
63
|
Pierzynski
|
CHI |
94
|
|||
64
|
Blalock
|
TEX |
94
|
|||
65
|
Ramirez
|
CHI |
92
|
|||
66
|
Teahen
|
KC |
92
|
|||
67
|
Inge
|
DET |
91
|
|||
68
|
Suzuki
|
OAK |
90
|
|||
69
|
Wells
|
TOR |
90
|
|||
70
|
Polanco
|
DET |
89
|
|||
71
|
Huff
|
BAL/DET |
88
|
|||
72
|
Upton
|
TAM |
87
|
|||
73
|
Andrus
|
TEX |
87
|
|||
74
|
Peralta
|
CLE |
86
|
|||
75
|
Cabrera
|
OAK/MIN |
86
|
|||
76
|
Rios
|
TOR/CHI |
85
|
|||
77
|
Betancourt
|
SEA/KC |
73
|
The 2009 American League base-to-out ratio was .718.
This list includes every player who had at least 3 (at bats + walks) for each game his team played.
OQs of selected nonqualifiers, American League: Jose Bautista TOR 105, Gordon Beckham CHI 109, Adrian Beltre SEA 80, Pat Burrell TAM 90, Chris Davis TEX 92, Jason Giambi OAK 95, Ken Griffey SEA 102, Vladimir Guerrero LA 101, Travis Hafner CLE 113, Josh Hamilton TEX 95, Matt Holliday OAK 114, Mike Jacobs KC 89, Andruw Jones TEX 110, Howie Kendrick LA 98, Mike Lowell BOS 108, Melvin Mora BAL 82, David Murphy TEX 107, Jorge Posada NY 126, Carlos Quentin CHI 99, Ryan Raburn DET 124, Nolan Reimold BAL 115, Scott Rolen TOR 113, Marcus Thames DET 105, Jim Thome CHI 129, Matt Wieters BAL 96, Ty Wigginton BAL 87, Delmon Young MIN 89.
2009 NATIONAL LEAGUE OQ LEADERS
Rank
|
Player
|
Team
|
OQ
|
|||
1
|
Pujols
|
STL
|
186
|
|||
2
|
Fielder
|
MIL
|
164
|
|||
3
|
Gonzalez,A
|
SD
|
154
|
|||
4
|
Votto
|
CIN
|
154
|
|||
5
|
Lee
|
CHI
|
151
|
|||
6
|
Dunn
|
WAS
|
147
|
|||
7
|
Berkman
|
HOU
|
144
|
|||
8
|
Ramirez
|
FLA
|
143
|
|||
9
|
Tulowitzki
|
COL
|
142
|
|||
10
|
Helton
|
COL
|
141
|
|||
11
|
Sandoval
|
SF
|
140
|
|||
12
|
Howard
|
PHI
|
140
|
|||
13
|
Hawpe
|
COL
|
138
|
|||
14
|
Braun
|
MIL
|
137
|
|||
15
|
Utley
|
PHI
|
134
|
|||
16
|
Ibanez
|
PHI
|
133
|
|||
17
|
Reynolds
|
ARI
|
132
|
|||
18
|
Upton
|
ARI
|
132
|
|||
19
|
Werth
|
PHI
|
132
|
|||
20
|
Zimmerman
|
WAS
|
132
|
|||
21
|
Johnson
|
WAS/FLA
|
127
|
|||
22
|
Jones,C
|
ATL
|
126
|
|||
23
|
Ethier
|
LA
|
126
|
|||
24
|
Willingham
|
WAS
|
126
|
|||
25
|
LaRoche,Ad
|
PIT/ATL
|
124
|
|||
26
|
Wright
|
NY
|
123
|
|||
27
|
McCutchen
|
PIT
|
121
|
|||
28
|
Coghlan
|
FLA
|
121
|
|||
29
|
Blake
|
LA
|
121
|
|||
30
|
Uggla
|
FLA
|
119
|
|||
31
|
Fukudome
|
CHI
|
119
|
|||
32
|
Kemp
|
LA
|
119
|
|||
33
|
McCann
|
ATL
|
118
|
|||
34
|
Pence
|
HOU
|
116
|
|||
35
|
Lee
|
HOU
|
115
|
|||
36
|
Lopez
|
STL/MIL
|
115
|
|||
37
|
Cameron
|
MIL
|
114
|
|||
38
|
Prado
|
ATL
|
114
|
|||
39
|
Escobar
|
ATL
|
113
|
|||
40
|
McLouth
|
PIT/ATL
|
111
|
|||
41
|
Victorino
|
PHI
|
111
|
|||
42
|
Fowler
|
COL
|
111
|
|||
43
|
Hudson
|
LA
|
107
|
|||
44
|
Cantu
|
FLA
|
107
|
|||
45
|
Ross
|
FLA
|
105
|
|||
46
|
Loney
|
LA
|
105
|
|||
47
|
Ludwick
|
STL
|
105
|
|||
48
|
Phillips
|
CIN
|
105
|
|||
49
|
Tejada
|
HOU
|
103
|
|||
50
|
Schumaker
|
STL
|
102
|
|||
51
|
Drew
|
ARI
|
102
|
|||
52
|
Castillo
|
NY
|
102
|
|||
53
|
Molina
|
STL
|
100
|
|||
54
|
Headley
|
SD
|
100
|
|||
55
|
Bourn
|
HOU
|
99
|
|||
56
|
Murphy
|
NY
|
99
|
|||
57
|
Morgan
|
PIT/WAS
|
99
|
|||
58
|
Young
|
ARI
|
99
|
|||
59
|
Soriano
|
CHI
|
97
|
|||
60
|
LaRoche,An
|
PIT
|
97
|
|||
61
|
Barmes
|
COL
|
96
|
|||
62
|
Rollins
|
PHI
|
95
|
|||
63
|
Furcal
|
LA
|
94
|
|||
64
|
Rowand
|
SF
|
94
|
|||
65
|
Rasmus
|
STL
|
94
|
|||
66
|
Francoeur
|
ATL/NY
|
93
|
|||
67
|
Molina
|
SF
|
93
|
|||
68
|
Theriot
|
CHI
|
92
|
|||
69
|
Kouzmanoff
|
SD
|
92
|
|||
70
|
Anderson
|
ATL
|
91
|
|||
71
|
Martin
|
LA
|
90
|
|||
72
|
Feliz
|
PHI
|
88
|
|||
73
|
Winn
|
SF
|
87
|
|||
74
|
Guzman
|
WAS
|
85
|
|||
75
|
Matsui
|
HOU
|
83
|
|||
76
|
Eckstein
|
SD
|
81
|
|||
77
|
Renteria
|
SF
|
80
|
|||
78
|
Kendall
|
MIL
|
78
|
|||
79
|
Bonifacio
|
FLA
|
74
|
The 2009 National League base-to-out ratio was .688.
This list includes every player who had at least 3 (at bats + walks) for each game his team played.
OQs of selected nonqualifiers, National League: Rick Ankiel STL 86, Carlos Beltran NY 140, Kyle Blanks SD 123, Geoff Blum HOU 88, Milton Bradley CHI 110, Jay Bruce CIN 108, Matt Diaz ATL 123, Elijah Dukes WAS 101, Jake Fox CHI 105, Brian Giles SD 69, Jonny Gomes CIN 126, Corey Hart MIL 102, Jeremy Hermida FLA 102, Matt Holliday STL 161, Garrett Jones PIT 143, Casey McGehee MIL 124, Lastings Milledge WAS/PIT 86, Miguel Montero ARI 117, Brandon Moss PIT 86, Laynce Nix CIN 105, Angel Pagan NY 117, Gerardo Parra ARI 94, Juan Pierre LA 97, Aramis Ramirez CHI 129, Manny Ramirez LA 150, Scott Rolen CIN 108, Gary Sheffield NY 121, Ian Stewart COL 112, Willy Taveras CIN 63, Juan Uribe SF 114, Will Venable SD 103.
Did you notice that the top 7 qualifiers for the 2009 National League OQ championship all play first base? After that you have 2 shortstops, then 3 more first basemen. That’s the most striking concentration of offensive productivity at one defensive position that I can remember. (Not a single outfielder, in either league, had a 140 season. Wonder if that’s a first.)
MEASURING BATTING SKILL, REVISITED
Throughout most of the twentieth century we would have described the Yankees’ Brett Gardner as “a .270 hitter.” That would have told us something about Gardner’s ability to get a hit, but nothing about his ability to reach base by means other than a hit, or about his ability to hit for power. Now it is common to show, next to a player’s name, a “line” of 3 three-digit percentages (batting average, on-base average, slugging average).
2009 Brett Gardner .270/.345/.379.
Another statistic increasingly in use is OPS, the sum of on-base average and slugging average.
2009 Brett Gardner .724.
Lately I have been seeing a lot of what is called OPS+. This measures a player’s OPS against the league average. It is expressed without a decimal point, so a player with a 100 OPS+ is an average major league hitter. So we could say Brett Gardner had a 95 OPS+ in 2009, or a -5 OPS+. (I’ve seen it expressed both ways.)
By the way, Brett Gardner’s 2009 OQ was 92.
I’m happy that at last the pundits, by embracing OPS+, are beginning to normalize the raw percentages by comparing them to the league averages. That’s an innovation the OQ pioneered in the early 1990s, and it’s crucial to enabling comparisons of players from different eras. Both OPS+ and OQ tell us who outperformed their peers and by how much.
I still prefer the OQ to OPS+ because I regard base-to-out ratio (BTOR) as more comprehensible and meaningful than OPS. But I haven’t beaten the OQ drum loudly enough for the pundits to hear, and I’m not optimistic that the OQ will enter the mainstream of statistical analysis anytime soon.
The internet has accelerated the development of more sophisticated measurements of events that occur in baseball games. New ground is broken every year, especially in the measurement of fielding skill. While I applaud this trend, I can’t foresee a day when the OQ will cease to be a useful evaluative tool. And it’s simple enough for a child to understand, which I think is a good thing.
STOP MAKING OUTS
J. D. Drew is one of the most maligned players in baseball. Players who perform with an emotionless demeanor are rarely appreciated, but the problem is deeper than that. Fans resent anybody they believe is overpaid, and they dislike Drew because he has a big contract but doesn’t drive in a lot of runs.
Boston has prospered with Drew in the lineup, so how bad can he be? Boston general manager Theo Epstein concurs. “He’s playing really good defense in right field. He deserves an awful lot of credit for that…. Based on his skill set, he’s always going to have underwhelming RBI totals. I couldn’t care less.”
“J.D. scores a ton of runs. And the reason he scores a ton of runs is because he does the single most important thing you can do in baseball as an offensive player, and that’s not make outs. He’s usually among the league leaders in on-base percentage. And he’s a really good base runner. Look at his runs scored on a rate basis throughout his career. It’s outstanding.”
Drew is the kind of player whose talents the OQ illuminates. And those who undervalue his contributions need to remember that Drew has shown the world that he can deliver a clutch grand slam every so often.
Drew is the type of patient hitter who “draws walks.” The value of that skill is still being debated. I would point out that a batter does not need to draw walks. What a batter needs to do is lay off bad pitches. The effective batter does not seek a walk but will settle for a walk if he can’t get a pitch he can drive for distance. “He draws walks” should read, “He is disciplined enough not to swing at bad pitches.” A walk is better than an out!
CATCHING YESTERDAY AND TODAY
As I endure another round of tortuously slow postseason games, I’m reminded of something Peter Morris told an interviewer earlier this year: “What today’s baseball fans rarely realize is that baseball was originally a sport with fast-paced, non-stop action.
“Catchers snapped the ball back to the pitcher, and if the batter stepped out of the box or even looked like he wasn’t paying attention, the pitcher would try to sneak a pitch past him. While every sport has timeouts, only baseball has unlimited timeouts, and I think some limit should be put on them. There’s no good reason that a batter should be allowed to step out and take as long as he wants after every pitch. Then you could put and enforce similar restrictions on the pitcher, as well as limiting the number of pickoff throws per at bat.”
Makes sense to me. Morris, by the way, may be the nation’s foremost authority on nineteenth century baseball. His latest book is Catcher: How The Man Behind The Plate Became An American Folk Hero (Ivan R. Dee, 2009). In it Morris traces the evolution of the position and its public perception from the game’s earliest days, when the catcher was regarded as the most important man on the field, through the Deadball Era of the early twentieth century. The breadth and depth of Morris’s research, and the liveliness of his writing, demonstrate to readers that they can know the nineteenth century game and ought to take the trouble to learn about it. Even the most knowledgeable fan will be entertained and will find something he didn’t know on practically every page.
As we near the second decade of the twenty-first century, Minnesota’s Joe Mauer is clearly the best of a quintet of stellar young catchers that includes Russell Martin, Brian McCann, Yadier Molina, and Miguel Montero. (Why do all their surnames begin with the letter M? I don’t know, you tell me.)
Mauer has now topped the American League in batting average three times and was 2009’s American League OQ leader. These achievements are unprecedented for a catcher. Mauer is that rarest and most sought-after of players: a good defensive catcher who can hit. It would not surprise me, however, if his catching days were numbered. He caught just 109 games in 2009 and was DHing a lot down the stretch.
Mauer has now caught 5 full seasons. He will be 27 next April, and I have read speculation that the Twins will move him to the outfield in the not-too-distant future, just as the Brewers moved 28-year-old B.J. Surhoff after 6 catching seasons a generation ago. Spared the rigors of catching, Surhoff was a productive major leaguer through age 40.
RAISING THE CEILING
Catcher Ivan Rodriguez will turn 38 next month. After catching 90 games for the Astros and 25 for the Rangers, he is now the career leader in games caught (2288), games started (2210), complete games (1953), and losses (1067). His 1137 wins rank second behind Carlton Fisk’s 1139. In the season just completed, Rodriguez became just the seventh catcher in baseball history to catch at least 100 games at age 37.
Setting an all-time durability record at baseball’s most strenuous defensive position was a remarkable feat that bears comparison to the consecutive-game record of Cal Ripken, but it was curiously uncelebrated. I can think of a few reasons for that: Rodriguez is Puerto Rican, hasn’t played in major media markets (except for two months with the Yankees in 2008), and has been linked (convincingly in my view) to performance-enhancing drugs.
After Rodriguez broke Fisk’s record on June 17 it was reported that Houston manager Cecil Cooper delayed his congratulations by one day. Apparently Cooper’s tardiness so offended the Astros players that the incident was cited as a major factor in Cooper’s dismissal in September, weeks after the Astros jettisoned Rodriguez. This impressed me as one of the odder stories of 2009.
Rodriguez is now a free agent. Once he was a perennial All-Star, but those days will never return. He is no longer a potent offensive force (82 OQ in Houston, 81 in Texas). His 2009 won-lost record was 55-56 with 4 no-decisions, remarkably similar to his 52-54-6 mark in 2008.
I have a curious suspicion that I will again see this catching star. I-Rod is now a middle-of-the-pack receiver, and I believe he’ll be signed by a middle-of-the-pack ballclub (perhaps Texas) in 2010. He is lean now, not bulked up. He is popular with fans and wise enough not to demand top dollar for his diminished services. He has been a high-profile performer for two decades, and we’re going to be able to enjoy him a bit longer.
Milwaukee’s Jason Kendall, incidentally, will (barring injury) become in 2010 the second catcher to lose 1000 games. Kendall will be 35 on Opening Day.
As a final note on catchers, here’s further proof that contemporary sportswriters believe that baseball time began the day they were born. Joe Posnanski recently opined, “Johnny Bench to me still battles Yogi for that spot as the greatest catcher in baseball history (with apologies to Piazza and Pudge Rodriguez).” Hey, Joe, ever hear of Mickey Cochrane? How about Roy Campanella? I’d take either of those guys over the four you cite, distinguished as they are, with no apologies.
I’ll go further. I’ll take Cochrane and Lefty Grove (teammates on the 1925-33 Philadelphia Athletics) and any major league players you want at the other seven positions, and you take any historical battery (e.g. Pedro Martinez and Jason Varitek) plus the same seven extras. We’ll play a simulated series. My team, with Cochrane and Grove, will beat yours 55% of the time.
(How did that song go? “Connie, Connie, oh Connie Mack, when are you comin back?”)
MANNY ISN’T MANNY ANY MORE
Manny Ramirez’s season gave us a rare opportunity to quantify the effect of steroid use. Man-Ram was giving the Dodgers a 206 OQ before his suspension, not far off the 222 he registered after they picked him up in 2008. After he returned in July, presumably purged of PEDS, his OQ was 132.
With steroids, Manny is Barry Bonds. Without steroids, Manny is a righthanded Raul Ibanez: very good but not great. Manny’s future begins where Raul Ibanez’s future begins. Both are 37 (they were born 3 days apart). But Manny makes a lot more money than Ibanez, and there is no worse defensive left fielder in baseball. Steroid-free Manny has nothing but diminishing returns to offer any team he’s going to play for in 2010.
Do you find it puzzling that millions of fans forgive Manny (not just for his steroid use, but also his loafing and malingering) while they revile Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and Bonds? I can think of a couple of explanations.
Summoned to the capitol, Palmeiro scolded our nation’s leaders, McGwire refused to answer their questions, and Clemens bristled with indignation. An appearance by Manny before Congress is literally unimaginable. Bonds is a scowling churl. Manny’s typical facial expression is a goofy half-grin. Because he cultivates an image as a “man-child” which the media reinforce, Manny is granted permission to operate in his own moral universe. Fans chuckle at his antics and shake their heads. In Manny’s idiocy they believe they sense a fundamental simplicity and innocence.
In modern childrearing it is fashionable to subject a misbehaving youngster to a “time out,” after which he is restored to the good graces of his parents. Manny was the first star player who, caught transgressing baseball’s new rules governing PED use, submitted to his punishment without a great deal of excuse-making, rationalizing or complaining. Many fans now seem willing to wipe his slate clean.
The panjandrums of baseball had hoped that by 2009 steroid stories would have ceased to be newsworthy. This was wishful thinking. The same people who are telling you the steroids era is over are the ones who told you it didn’t exist in the first place. Performance-enhancing drugs emit a toxic cloud that still hovers about the game. However, the nation’s reservoir of indignity may be now be draining away.
In a letter the Cincinnati Enquirer published on July 15, fan Larry Vogt wrote: “I think we should bring back steroids. That All-Star home run derby Monday was like watching paint dry. It’s a lot more fun for fans when the ball goes out of the park and into the street. I don’t care if they all do performance-enhancing drugs. I just want to see action. Baseball is getting less and less action. And the pitching isn’t getting better.”
It is evident that Vogt doesn’t define “action” quite the way Peter Morris does. For Vogt action means hitting the ball out of the park, and I don’t believe Vogt is atypical. The home run derby the day before the All-Star Game now receives as much media coverage as the game itself.
Recently Bill James predicted that the use of steroids and their descendants will become ubiquitous in our society, and soon. Subsequently, steroid use by athletes will not be stigmatized as immoral but regarded as a practice with no moral implications. I, too, see the wheel of social change turning in this direction.
Although it makes me uneasy, Jose Canseco, reviled and ridiculed now, will be redeemed. Well before mid-century, he will be lauded as a pioneer.
BASEBALL IN SOMALIA
“He am what is, Mister Radhames Liz.”
I’ll give credit to the marketing geniuses in the Baltimore Orioles front office for a catchy slogan, but they didn’t exactly hitch their wagon to a star. The Dominican righthander went 6-6 in 17 starts last season, and while .500 may not look like much, it was the best winning percentage of any Orioles pitcher with more than 10 decisions. Liz was a fresh face, 25 years old on Opening Day, but his 6.72 ERA of 2008 was an unfortunate harbinger of things to come. In two April appearances Liz got 4 outs but gave up 10 earned runs. That computes to an ERA of 67.50, too high even for Baltimore. The O’s tossed Liz onto their very large dung heap of failed pitching prospects.
As political scientists speak of “failed states,” we can identify baseball’s failed franchises. Baltimore is one of them, along with Kansas City and Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Washington is there now, and Houston is on its way there and maybe San Diego too. These are the organizations that don’t win and won’t win because they can’t identify and procure talent. They can’t distinguish a prospect from a suspect, whether in the front office or on the field.
Failed franchises exasperate and demoralize their fans. Here’s an example, one single play that summed up the Cincinnati Reds’ 2009 season. It happened on August 16. The Reds, playing a Sunday afternoon game at home, were leading Washington 4-3. The Nationals were batting in the eighth with one out, Adam Dunn on second and Josh Willingham on first.
Ryan Zimmerman smacked a line drive to right. Right fielder Chris Dickerson caught the ball, but it popped out of his glove, allowing Dunn to lumber across the plate with the tying run. This was an unhappy outcome for Reds fans, but one they expected as commonplace in the second division.
Then things got much worse. The ball caromed away from Dickerson in the direction of second baseman Drew Sutton, who picked it up while Willingham was rounding third. Instead of running the ball in toward the infield or throwing it in hard, Sutton lobbed the ball lazily to first baseman Joey Votto. Willingham broke for home and scored easily before Votto’s hurried throw reached the plate. This was the final run of the game. The Reds lost 5-4.
This was one of the most flagrant non-hustle plays I’ve ever witnessed, and it cost the home team the ballgame. And who perpetrated this outrage? Drew Sutton was a 26-year-old rookie utility player who had no legitimate claim to a major league roster spot to begin with. He was the player the Reds got stuck with after they gave 2008 shortstop Jeff Keppinger to the Astros. A fan might expect or even tolerate some loafing by a veteran like Ken Griffey Jr or Gary Sheffield who had paid some major league dues. But anyone would think a rookie like Sutton would be trying extra hard to make a good impression, especially when the hitting (84 OQ) and fielding abilities he’d been showing were marginal at best.
For Reds fans, the very worst thing about this game’s sad denouement was the spectacle of Reds players tripping into the dugout with facial expressions and body language that suggested a blasé indifference. The message they conveyed was, “We are all Drew Sutton.” Management, too, reacted to these events with a collective shrug. In his postgame remarks Reds manager Dusty Baker did concede that Sutton’s lob “wasn’t a very heads-up play.”
A few observers might characterize these stoic displays as “professionalism” and find them praiseworthy. But if there were ever a time and place in professional athletics to let disappointment show, wouldn’t this kind of defeat qualify? Isn’t “heads-up” important? Before the game ended Baker should have banished Sutton to the clubhouse to await GM Walt Jocketty’s postgame presentation of a one-way ticket to Palookaville.
Last winter Jocketty, a retired-on-the-job type, trumpeted the signing of free agent center fielder Willy Taveras, already cast off by 3 organizations at the age of 27. Taveras, he insisted, was a “base stealing threat” who would give the Reds a “legitimate leadoff man.” Taveras gave the team 102 games in which he displayed substandard defensive skills while scoring just 56 runs. It is almost inconceivable that anyone who ever played or watched professional baseball could have thought Taveras was helping the team batting at the top of the order with an OQ of 63. Finally, citing a “strained quadriceps muscle,” the team shut him down in August.
Playing in a ballpark that is noticeably hitter-friendly, the Reds scored just 645 runs because Jocketty/Baker insisted on leading off with Taveras and assigning the second spot to offensive ciphers like Adam Rosales (80 OQ), Paul Janish (75), and Alex Gonzalez (66). If you need any of those guys in your lineup, they’ll hurt you least if you bat them eighth. When you bunch your outs at the top of the order, you limit your run production, which means you don’t win. You may as well have your pitchers lead off.
Cincinnati owner Bob Castellini wonders why the Reds don’t draw, why fans aren’t willing to shell out for expensive tickets, parking, and concessions in the name of “supporting their team.” It’s no mystery, Bob: fans are smarter than you give them credit for.
While Cincinnati lurches along with free-agent sows’ ears like Taveras and Gonzalez, another failed franchise, Pittsburgh, alienates its fans with a different but equally hopeless strategy. Pittsburgh trades away its best players and fan favorites for another team’s prospects, then describes these moves as “rebuilding.” If you can’t develop your own players, why should fans believe you can develop another organization’s players?
Failed franchises invariably blame their small-market status for their shortcomings. There is no doubt that as a general rule robust revenues correlate with robust won-lost records. But poorly run big-market teams perform poorly, while astutely run small-market teams can and do compete.
A wise person once said that demography is not destiny. If you must lose, sell hope. Fans will buy hope if you give them a reason to believe in it. When you trot out symbols of hopelessness like Willy Taveras and Drew Sutton, fans stay home.
GETTING MAD AT BASEBALL
On the eve of the World Series, fan Corey Kendall wrote on some sage’s blog, “We’ve gotten away from discussing the game of baseball itself & all anyone focuses on these days is whatever is wrong with baseball. Between the schedule, the weather, instant replay, the length of baseball games, whatever else crops up during the postseason, that seems to take over from the actual games now. Does anyone actually care about what’s happening on the field anymore? I feel like I’m the only one who still watches baseball for the pure nature of the sport, while the rest of the universe spends all their (time) complaining about anything & everything in baseball…”
“I’m starting to wonder if there will ever be a positive, good-news story about baseball anymore, because it’s all about ‘what’s wrong with baseball’ now. EVERYTHING is wrong with the game, is it? Is there anything left that we can say is good for baseball now?”
Kendall makes an important point. At this time baseball can boast the most frustrated fans in all American sports. The game has become a lightning rod for negativity. Baseball has an All-Star Game: let’s get mad because my favorite didn’t get selected. Baseball has a Hall of Fame: let’s get mad because my favorite didn’t get elected. Baseball has postseason awards (MVP, Cy Young, etc): let’s get mad because my favorite got slighted. Baseball players, encouraged by management and the media, use performance-enhancing drugs. Let’s get mad…
High Commissioner Bud Selig believes he presides over a golden age of baseball because attendance has never been so high. I believe that fans are going to more games but enjoying them less, seeking satisfaction but not receiving it. Rarely, if ever, do I hear football fans grumbling about the aesthetics of twenty-first century football. People seem to like the present-day game of football just fine, and that’s why football is the most popular spectator sport in America.
In the fall baseball and football are played simultaneously. When you watch a football game on television this weekend, you will see advertisements for beer and new cars and trucks. Tune in to a baseball game, where baseball’s two best teams will contest the world championship, and you will see ads for beer and remedies for medical conditions that afflict the middle-aged and the elderly. Baseball today appeals to a demographic whose attachment to it was formed in an era when games were played at a snappier pace, when batters had normal-sized bodies, when pitchers were allowed to complete games and thus enhance their star power, and umpires were better trained and supervised.
As a commentator on baseball, I can’t seem to stop myself from criticizing today’s game although I realize that by doing so I’m helping to pump up this negativity, just as I am heating up the earth (they tell me) whenever I switch on a light bulb or drive my car.
The pleasures of extolling “the good old days” while denigrating the new are overrated. It’s an activity that soon ceases to be amusing. But try as I may, I can’t convince myself that if fans could somehow choose between the baseball I watched as a kid and the article as it exists today, they’d wouldn’t desert today’s ballparks to beg for entrance to that time machine I keep in my memory.
Scoff if you must, but I’ll come out and confess it. I liked games that were decided in less than two and a half hours because batters didn’t step out of the box after every pitch. I’d rather watch a lean, graceful Hank Aaron hit 35 home runs than some HGH-fueled behemoth hit 50 home runs. I’d rather watch Jim Bunning or Camilo Pascual or Bob Gibson or Don Drysdale or Warren Spahn complete games and pitch 270 innings than see talented pitchers hamstrung by “Joba Rules.” I don’t want to see managers change pitchers five times in one inning. And I especially dislike watching World Series games contested by athletes wearing Elmer Fudd hats and/or balaclavas.
The game I watched when I was a boy was the same game my father watched when he was my age. My grandfather watched Deadball Era baseball as a lad but did not mourn the banning of the spitball and preferred the game as it was played throughout his adulthood. Three generations of men in my family enjoyed baseball and shared a sense of continuity. But it is my sad fate to tell my own children and grandchildren that baseball today is not baseball at its best.
I watch baseball to be entertained, stimulated, and inspired, not annoyed. When the deficiencies of the modern game bug me beyond endurance, I dig out my pre-1970 issues of Baseball Digest (in its own golden age when it was edited by the great Herbert Simons) and spend a joyous hour with the game I fell in love with.
RUMINATIONS
* You take Albert Pujols. I’ll take Albie Pearson. (Just kidding.)
* It astounded me that Florida went 12 games over .500 with Emilio Bonifacio leading off and playing third base. His “intangibles” must be off the charts.
* Jimmy Rollins became the first player in major league history to record TWO 500-out seasons. Rollins also accomplished the feat in 2007, when he produced 47 more runs and recorded an OQ 25 points higher than he did in 2009. But I’ll take his 2009 season, because the Phillies won the National League pennant with Rollins at shortstop. Winning trumps everything!
* Baltimore and Washington would have squared up in this year’s Negative World Series, which would inevitably have been dubbed “The Beltway Series.” In all seriousness, I wonder when I’m going to be able to see genuine stars like Nick Markakis and Ryan Zimmerman in postseason play. They’re trapped as utterly as Floyd Collins was in the 1925 offseason. Free agency was devised to liberate players like these, and for Markakis and Zimmerman, it can’t happen soon enough. Zimmerman is the best third baseman in baseball and the only reason to watch a Washington Nationals game.
* Could there have been, or could there ever be, a conspiracy to fix the Negative World Series? I’ll have to do some serious thinking about that.
* Nyjer Morgan is the new Juan Pierre.
* Who started teaching outfielders to catch fly balls while sliding on their hindquarters? When you find that guy, fire him.
* Aroldis Chapman is Andorra’s gift to baseball. He is now a national hero in his adopted country. But I’m still waiting for the first Andorra-born player to ascend to the major leagues.
* Despite all the talk about Aroldis, don’t be surprised to hear another name intoned quite often once the Hot Stove League begins: Yu Darvish.
* Cubs outfielder Samuel Babson Fuld has a great baseball name, but they’re never going to nickname him “Mister Clutch.” The 29 hits he got this year batted in a grand total of 2 runs, both in a season-ending 5-2 loss to Arizona. Still, Fuld’s 122 OQ in limited duty leads me to suspect he could help the Cubs at the top of the order, even though he doesn’t steal bases. The Cubs have issues in their outfield. Fuld could be part of the solution.
* Nickname of the year: “The Hyphenator” (Seattle LHP Ryan Rowland-Smith). He also happens to be the best Australian player in the major leagues right now.
* Nomar Garciaparra registered an 85 OQ for the also-ran A’s. When he wasn’t languishing on the disabled list he played a little first base and a little third without noticeable distinction. At age 36, his career is probably over. My question: what the heck happened to the guy who was the toast of baseball just 5 years ago? I have no idea, but I’m certain of three things: there is a story, sportswriters know what it is, and they are determined not to write about it.
* Pat Burrell is the Powers Boothe of baseball.
* The ever-philosophical Jonny Gomes uttered my favorite quote of 2009: “Who are we, as ballplayers, without the fans?”
* When in Andorra, stay at the Abba Xalet Suites.
October 2009