David Ortiz set a new AL record last night with his 32nd road home run. I found this interesting; the Red Sox are famously better at Fenway, especially as an offense. Bizzare angles and loud fans push the offense to a new level, which in turn gives guys like Ortiz more lineup support. However, Fenway also has a large right field that his homers must escape. So as far as Ortiz's home run total, there are two competeing factors that come into play at home. To start untangling this issue, let's look at his splits (via MLB.com):
Ortiz: AB; Avg; TB; HR; SLG; OBP
Home: 259; .293; 157; 21; .606; .410
Road: 287; .279; 190; 32; .662; .404
To get some idea as to the effects Fenway's right field has on Ortiz, I will first compare home run rates. At home, Ortiz hits a homer every 12.3 ABs. On the road he improves to one every 8.97 ABs. This is a large enough difference to be significant. If we assume that this difference is caused only by the size of Fenway, we can divide his 259 road ABs by his 8.97 road HR rate for an estimate of possible home HRs. If we do this, we get 28 HRs at home, 7 more than his real number. Adding 7 to his season total would put him at 60, 1 short of the AL record.
But it certainly can't be that simple. In fact, the splits show that Ortiz is a better hitter at home than on the road. The only numbers that are better on the road are HR and SLG. But these are related. To eliminate this, I will assume those 7 HR he missed at home turned into doubles due to the dimensions of the park (a conservative estimate - many were probably outs). If we convert these doubles into home runs, he gains 14 total bases at home. This would give him a slugging percentage of .660, almost exactly the same as his road total. So, in general Ortiz is a better hitter at home, better average, better on-base, similar slugging. Many Sox have attributed this to the rabid fan support, and there is certainly a comfort factor as there is for any team at home.
I have shown that if he homered at his road rate while at home, he would have 60 HR so far this year. But he is a better hitter at home. So it might not be unreasonable to expect that, if Fenway had a league average right field, he might have hit more than the estimated 28 at home. If not for Fenway's dimensions, we may be looking at the AL home run record holder.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
51!
Well, David Ortiz won't be topping Roger Maris as I had previously hoped, but he has set a new Red Sox record with 51 homeruns. It is really remarkable that only one Red Sox slugger has hit 50 in a year before, as a franchise with such a long history and a practice of stockpiling sluggers.
We are also given pause with this feat to consider Ortiz's place in history. As a one dimensional player with a body type that does not historically age well (Cecil Fielder and Mo Vaughn say hi), it is an interesting question as to whether he can keep it up long enough to be a hall of famer. Personally, I see him entering Jim Rice land. Jim Rice was dominant; undeniably one of the best hitters in the league for several years. But he retired at 36, apparently yet to have accumulated the career numbers to make it in to the Hall. Now, I think he belongs, and I know the Galdstoner agrees. But the point is he was a hotly contested candidate for the Hall, and I think the debate surrounding his candidacy is likely to be repeated with Ortiz.
It's not that I don't think Ortiz has several more good years, and even a few great ones, in front of him. It's just that I would be shocked if he achieves the year in, year out consistency and the longevity of a no-doubt Hall of Famer, say, Manny Ramirez.
Let's take the Jim Rice analogy and run with it, as they are quite similar players. Here are their career lines:
Player; HR; Avg; OBP; SLG
Rice; 382; .298; .352; .502
Ortiz; 228; .282; .372; .547
Rice has the edge on batting average, but Ortiz has the edge in OBP and slugging. We should keep in mind, though, that we are catching Ortiz at his peak, and these number will likely suffer some in his decline. That said, I think that if Ortiz retires with numbers that are for all intents and purposes identical to Rice, he gets in. His clutch performance, particularly the 2004 playoffs, and his popularity and subsequent value as an ambassador for MLB give him an edge that Rice lacked, at least in my mind (add another column to the stats labeled: 'walk off hits in a historic playoff and world series win'). More practically, I think he needs to hit 400 homeruns to make a truly convincing case to the electorate, that is without dealing a significant hit to his other numbers. For the record, Rice had 213 after his 7th full season.
So that's my assessment; 172 homeruns lie on David Ortiz's road to the Hall. I, for one, think he can do it.
We are also given pause with this feat to consider Ortiz's place in history. As a one dimensional player with a body type that does not historically age well (Cecil Fielder and Mo Vaughn say hi), it is an interesting question as to whether he can keep it up long enough to be a hall of famer. Personally, I see him entering Jim Rice land. Jim Rice was dominant; undeniably one of the best hitters in the league for several years. But he retired at 36, apparently yet to have accumulated the career numbers to make it in to the Hall. Now, I think he belongs, and I know the Galdstoner agrees. But the point is he was a hotly contested candidate for the Hall, and I think the debate surrounding his candidacy is likely to be repeated with Ortiz.
It's not that I don't think Ortiz has several more good years, and even a few great ones, in front of him. It's just that I would be shocked if he achieves the year in, year out consistency and the longevity of a no-doubt Hall of Famer, say, Manny Ramirez.
Let's take the Jim Rice analogy and run with it, as they are quite similar players. Here are their career lines:
Player; HR; Avg; OBP; SLG
Rice; 382; .298; .352; .502
Ortiz; 228; .282; .372; .547
Rice has the edge on batting average, but Ortiz has the edge in OBP and slugging. We should keep in mind, though, that we are catching Ortiz at his peak, and these number will likely suffer some in his decline. That said, I think that if Ortiz retires with numbers that are for all intents and purposes identical to Rice, he gets in. His clutch performance, particularly the 2004 playoffs, and his popularity and subsequent value as an ambassador for MLB give him an edge that Rice lacked, at least in my mind (add another column to the stats labeled: 'walk off hits in a historic playoff and world series win'). More practically, I think he needs to hit 400 homeruns to make a truly convincing case to the electorate, that is without dealing a significant hit to his other numbers. For the record, Rice had 213 after his 7th full season.
So that's my assessment; 172 homeruns lie on David Ortiz's road to the Hall. I, for one, think he can do it.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Friday, September 15, 2006
Should they stay or should they go?
Recently, much has been made of the difference in performance between prospects that the Red Sox have traded away and those they've kept. The numbers are noteworthy. Here are some of the most notable prospects whom the Sox dealt in the last few years:
Freddy Sanchez: (BA/OBP/SLG/EqA) .340/.376/.472/.285
Hanley Ramirez: .288/.354/.459/.285
Andy Marte: .236/.293/.431/.241
Anibal Sanchez: (ERA/WHIP/IP): 2.96/1.16/94.3
Cla Merideth: 0.66/.069/40.7
A pretty impressive bunch it seems. The only one struggling is Marte, but noone doubts that he will find it and he will be a star. For comparison, here are some of the prospects the Sox have been breaking in this year:
Pedroia: .122/.173/.204/.067
Lester: 4.76/1.65/81.3
Hansen: 5.71/1.56/43.7
Delcarmen: 4.93/1.54/49.3
Gabbard: 3.13/1.65/23.0
Papelbon: 0.92/0.78/68.3
Certainly not as impressive (with the notable exception of Papelbon). There are several factors that are probably behind this. I am not convinced that it is entirely scouting failures by the Sox. First off, many of these represent quite small samples, so it could be mostly an issue of chance. Further, many Sox prospects were forced into their roles by injury/ineffectiveness of those above them. The team did not plan on depending so heavily on Delcarmen, or playing Pedroia at the beginning of the year. So they may not be quite as ready as others. Another interesting idea is that Fenway is probably not a very easy place to break in. There is a tremendous amount of fan pressure on top of the pressure involved in trying to make it at that level. It is probably that much harder to rebound from poor performances, as opposed to San Diego or Florida or Cleveland or Pittsburg, where the other prospects have landed. There has also been criticism of the Sox pitching coach Dave Wallace, due to the fact that so many pitchers have done much better other places than they have for the Sox (i.e. Clement, Arroyo, Beckett, the entire bullpen this year). Since most of the prospects I mentioned are pitchers, there may be something to this.
The final, and likely most important fact is that most of the guys who were traded landed in the NL. We all know how the NL is doing these days. On his blog, Seth Mnoonkin shows some interesting stats:
"Pitcher 1: 7-0, 2.82 ERA, 1 save, 8.91 K/9, and a batting average against hovering around .200 in 8 starts and 14 relief appearances over 63.2 innings.
In the end, though, it is important to keep in mind that the first few months of a player's career cannot be seen as indicative of the rest of it. I'm sure all of these guys will pull their game together and have fine careers and we'll all be glad the Sox held onto them (well, not the Galdstoner).
Freddy Sanchez: (BA/OBP/SLG/EqA) .340/.376/.472/.285
Hanley Ramirez: .288/.354/.459/.285
Andy Marte: .236/.293/.431/.241
Anibal Sanchez: (ERA/WHIP/IP): 2.96/1.16/94.3
Cla Merideth: 0.66/.069/40.7
A pretty impressive bunch it seems. The only one struggling is Marte, but noone doubts that he will find it and he will be a star. For comparison, here are some of the prospects the Sox have been breaking in this year:
Pedroia: .122/.173/.204/.067
Lester: 4.76/1.65/81.3
Hansen: 5.71/1.56/43.7
Delcarmen: 4.93/1.54/49.3
Gabbard: 3.13/1.65/23.0
Papelbon: 0.92/0.78/68.3
Certainly not as impressive (with the notable exception of Papelbon). There are several factors that are probably behind this. I am not convinced that it is entirely scouting failures by the Sox. First off, many of these represent quite small samples, so it could be mostly an issue of chance. Further, many Sox prospects were forced into their roles by injury/ineffectiveness of those above them. The team did not plan on depending so heavily on Delcarmen, or playing Pedroia at the beginning of the year. So they may not be quite as ready as others. Another interesting idea is that Fenway is probably not a very easy place to break in. There is a tremendous amount of fan pressure on top of the pressure involved in trying to make it at that level. It is probably that much harder to rebound from poor performances, as opposed to San Diego or Florida or Cleveland or Pittsburg, where the other prospects have landed. There has also been criticism of the Sox pitching coach Dave Wallace, due to the fact that so many pitchers have done much better other places than they have for the Sox (i.e. Clement, Arroyo, Beckett, the entire bullpen this year). Since most of the prospects I mentioned are pitchers, there may be something to this.
The final, and likely most important fact is that most of the guys who were traded landed in the NL. We all know how the NL is doing these days. On his blog, Seth Mnoonkin shows some interesting stats:
"Pitcher 1: 7-0, 2.82 ERA, 1 save, 8.91 K/9, and a batting average against hovering around .200 in 8 starts and 14 relief appearances over 63.2 innings.
Pitcher 2: 7-2, 2.89 ERA, 5.48 K/9, and a .208 batting average against in 14 starts over 87.1 innings."
Very similar numbers. More K's for #1, but that's the only striking difference. "If you haven't guessed by now," Mnoonkin explains, "pitcher 1 is an amalgam of Josh Beckett (4-0, 2.83, .165 BAA), Jon Lester (3-0, 2.45 ERA, .241 BAA), Craig Hansen (1-0, 4.50 ERA, .250 BAA in 6 appearances), and Manny Delcarmen (1 save, 2.57 ERA, .231 BAA in 8 appearances) versus the National League. Pitcher 2 is Anibal Sanchez. (Sanchez, in his two AL starts, was 1-0 with a 6.30 ERA and a .326 BAA.)" So it would seem that, with the same competition, the performances are quite comparable (I know Beckett isn't one of the prospects discussed, but he is young and part of the 'long term plan' and he has struggled this year).In the end, though, it is important to keep in mind that the first few months of a player's career cannot be seen as indicative of the rest of it. I'm sure all of these guys will pull their game together and have fine careers and we'll all be glad the Sox held onto them (well, not the Galdstoner).
Friday, September 08, 2006
Good Baseball Books
Now, I do not consider myself to be a very well read man, in fact I often find long passages of text quite difficult to get through unless they are very entertaining, or captivatingly informative. However, I recently purchased Bill James's New Historical Baseball Abstract, and I must say it is one of the best books I own. It has everything, great anecdotes, great use of statistics and great analysis of the use of statistics. You can read it cover to cover, or you can use it as top notch bathroom reading. You can find emphatic agreement or rabid disagreement. As I said, it has everything.
Now, I would not normally post on such a small issue, but we have been encouraging reader input with only mild results. So I ask you, the reader (ya you, that one guy who visits from time to time) what your favorite baseball books are. Baseball is a fundamentally poetic game, and there are many great literary works devoted to the subject. As far as single passages, you can't beat A. Bartlett Giamatti's The Green Fields of the Mind. That is an incontrovertible fact; not open to discussion. Books, however, are a different matter.
Just to get things started, a few of my favorite books: Obviously, I loved Moneyball, it's a very good book, though it's not the Bible (no one thinks it is, and I wish some people would get over this). I also enjoyed Roger Kahn's The Head Game, a very interesting history of Major League pitchers and pitching. Another book that I read in my youth and enjoyed was October 1964 by David Halberstam, an account of the fall of the Yankee's dynasty and rise of the Cardinals (no Red Sox bias, I swear). Just two off the top of my head.
We here at Nosebleed Baseball view one of our main goals as encouraging the reader to think. So I guess this will be the first test of our success. Please, write in and recommend your favorite books.
Now, I would not normally post on such a small issue, but we have been encouraging reader input with only mild results. So I ask you, the reader (ya you, that one guy who visits from time to time) what your favorite baseball books are. Baseball is a fundamentally poetic game, and there are many great literary works devoted to the subject. As far as single passages, you can't beat A. Bartlett Giamatti's The Green Fields of the Mind. That is an incontrovertible fact; not open to discussion. Books, however, are a different matter.
Just to get things started, a few of my favorite books: Obviously, I loved Moneyball, it's a very good book, though it's not the Bible (no one thinks it is, and I wish some people would get over this). I also enjoyed Roger Kahn's The Head Game, a very interesting history of Major League pitchers and pitching. Another book that I read in my youth and enjoyed was October 1964 by David Halberstam, an account of the fall of the Yankee's dynasty and rise of the Cardinals (no Red Sox bias, I swear). Just two off the top of my head.
We here at Nosebleed Baseball view one of our main goals as encouraging the reader to think. So I guess this will be the first test of our success. Please, write in and recommend your favorite books.
The Best Crop Of Rookie Pitchers In My Lifetime
This year has seen the debut of by far the best group of rookie pitchers in my lifetime. Granted, I have only been around since 1984 but this year's rookie class is inarguably incredible. While the statistics help illustrate just how great this class is — I will get to that in a moment — my anecdotal knowledge of these guys is just as impressive. Watching Verlander, Zumaya, Weaver, Liriano, Johnson, Broxton, Papelbon, and others pitch is amazing. It is a truly thrilling experience to watch talented players succeed right from the start.
To me, the most impressive aspect of this year's rookie pitchers is that they are excellent regardless of what metric is used to measure them. Not only are they statistically brilliant, but they also have all the attributes that scouts love: poise, attitude, stuff, etc. In addition, they are deep and diverse.
They are deep. Some years you have two, three, or even four guys who have good years. This year there are fifteen rookie pitchers with VORPs over 20 and that doesn't include some of the players who were called up later in the season but have excelled in the limited time they have been in the majors.
They are diverse. Many guys have electric stuff (Papelbon, Liriano, Zumaya, Broxton, etc.). Others have good but not great stuff but make up for it with poise and command (Verlander, Weaver, etc.). There are great starters and great relievers. Some guys started the season in the big leagues while others had to adjust to mid-season. There are several guys who, while they haven't performed exceptionally, have played important roles for their teams after being brought up to the majors earlier than their clubs would have liked due to injuries or payroll concerns (Jon Lester and Cole Hamels stand out in this regard). In addition, there are, undoubtably, a number of rookie pitchers who will take a season or more to adjust to the level of talent in the majors but who, in the long run, will be excellent pitchers in their own right (Scott Olson, Matt Cain, Taylor Buchholz, etc.).
In both leagues, there are rookies in the top five in ERA (Josh Johnson in the NL and Justin Verlander in the AL) and, if they had pitched enough innings to qualify (excluding relievers), there would be three more in the top ten in the AL (Jered Weaver, Franicisco Liriano, and Jeremy Sowers) and two more in the top ten in the NL (Chad Billingsley and Anibal Sanchez, who recently pitched a no-hiter). On top of that long list of prominent starters, you could make a case that rookies make up four of the best relievers in the American League (Jonathan Papelbon, Joel Zumaya, Adam Wainwright, and Bobby Jenks, a rookie in name only given his late seaon and post-season exploits last year) and two of the best relievers in the National League (Cla Meredith and Jonathan Broxton).
I will inevitably leave some players who deserve to be mentioned out of this post due to a combination of my relative lack of knowledge of the National League, the sheer number of rookies who have been impact players this season, and the fact that I am an idiot. With that in mind, I want to list some other rookie pitchers who have had good seasons this year: John Maine, Clay Hensley, Chuck James, and Manny Delcarmen.
What does this all add up to? Well, I think there are two related points to be made regarding this historically great group of rookie pitchers. First of all, before we stake our bets for the future on these guys it is important to remember that many, if not most, of these guys will have neither long nor particularly impressive careers due to injuries, mental/makeup issues, and being unable to cope with the adjustments that hitters across the league will inevitably make over the coming seasons. Secondly, with that in mind, let's seize the day. This is a great time to be a baseball fan and we should make our best efforts to enjoy these great rookies while we can.
To me, the most impressive aspect of this year's rookie pitchers is that they are excellent regardless of what metric is used to measure them. Not only are they statistically brilliant, but they also have all the attributes that scouts love: poise, attitude, stuff, etc. In addition, they are deep and diverse.
They are deep. Some years you have two, three, or even four guys who have good years. This year there are fifteen rookie pitchers with VORPs over 20 and that doesn't include some of the players who were called up later in the season but have excelled in the limited time they have been in the majors.
They are diverse. Many guys have electric stuff (Papelbon, Liriano, Zumaya, Broxton, etc.). Others have good but not great stuff but make up for it with poise and command (Verlander, Weaver, etc.). There are great starters and great relievers. Some guys started the season in the big leagues while others had to adjust to mid-season. There are several guys who, while they haven't performed exceptionally, have played important roles for their teams after being brought up to the majors earlier than their clubs would have liked due to injuries or payroll concerns (Jon Lester and Cole Hamels stand out in this regard). In addition, there are, undoubtably, a number of rookie pitchers who will take a season or more to adjust to the level of talent in the majors but who, in the long run, will be excellent pitchers in their own right (Scott Olson, Matt Cain, Taylor Buchholz, etc.).
In both leagues, there are rookies in the top five in ERA (Josh Johnson in the NL and Justin Verlander in the AL) and, if they had pitched enough innings to qualify (excluding relievers), there would be three more in the top ten in the AL (Jered Weaver, Franicisco Liriano, and Jeremy Sowers) and two more in the top ten in the NL (Chad Billingsley and Anibal Sanchez, who recently pitched a no-hiter). On top of that long list of prominent starters, you could make a case that rookies make up four of the best relievers in the American League (Jonathan Papelbon, Joel Zumaya, Adam Wainwright, and Bobby Jenks, a rookie in name only given his late seaon and post-season exploits last year) and two of the best relievers in the National League (Cla Meredith and Jonathan Broxton).
I will inevitably leave some players who deserve to be mentioned out of this post due to a combination of my relative lack of knowledge of the National League, the sheer number of rookies who have been impact players this season, and the fact that I am an idiot. With that in mind, I want to list some other rookie pitchers who have had good seasons this year: John Maine, Clay Hensley, Chuck James, and Manny Delcarmen.
What does this all add up to? Well, I think there are two related points to be made regarding this historically great group of rookie pitchers. First of all, before we stake our bets for the future on these guys it is important to remember that many, if not most, of these guys will have neither long nor particularly impressive careers due to injuries, mental/makeup issues, and being unable to cope with the adjustments that hitters across the league will inevitably make over the coming seasons. Secondly, with that in mind, let's seize the day. This is a great time to be a baseball fan and we should make our best efforts to enjoy these great rookies while we can.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Hooray Red Sox (sour grapes edition)
Well, I am very happy that the Sox managed to bounce back and take two out of three from the White Sox. Not that I think it really puts them back into the race, but I just don't like the White Sox, and it knocked them down some in the standings. (Also, it helped to get some revenge for last years playoff sweep) Mostly though, I don't like Ozzie Guillen. I understand that he is a 'colorful character' and provides many good sound bites for the media. The problem is that I think he regularly takes it too far. He calls out players publicly far too often, even for ridiculous things like failing to throw at an opposing hitter. Along the same lines, I didn't like the way he treated Frank Thomas, a career White Sox and probably the best hitter of the '90's. I also recall the end of last season when they faced the fading Indians, he was mocking their mascot by pretending to choke himself. Really, that's beyond the realm of reasonable.
He gets way too much credit for his team's success, just because he is so loud that he attracts all of the attention. If you look at the rotation he had last year, and the lineup he has this year, it should be clear where the credit belongs. Ya, the players. And Kenny Williams, who brought them there. The Galdstoner and I agreed last year, as his popularity grew, that Ozzie's fall will be fast and very very ugly when it comes. Sure, everything is fine when you are winning. But this team will fail at some time. And rest assured, when it does, Ozzie will say and do all the wrong things and he will be booed off the team by a fanbase suddenly wise to his absurd behavior.
Anyway, the sox have an upcoming series with the Twins. I say start all the young guys. Let Minnesota take the series and give experience to the guys who'll help next year. It will help keep the White Sox out of the playoffs and continue what they started this week.
So now, in my mind, the only remaining series that matters is the Yankees series. Again, they are not getting back in the race, but they need a little revenge for that last series. It would also be a shame to let a two month collapse by the Sox taint an otherwise totally even head-to-head record over the last 4 years. So the season may be over, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to play for.
He gets way too much credit for his team's success, just because he is so loud that he attracts all of the attention. If you look at the rotation he had last year, and the lineup he has this year, it should be clear where the credit belongs. Ya, the players. And Kenny Williams, who brought them there. The Galdstoner and I agreed last year, as his popularity grew, that Ozzie's fall will be fast and very very ugly when it comes. Sure, everything is fine when you are winning. But this team will fail at some time. And rest assured, when it does, Ozzie will say and do all the wrong things and he will be booed off the team by a fanbase suddenly wise to his absurd behavior.
Anyway, the sox have an upcoming series with the Twins. I say start all the young guys. Let Minnesota take the series and give experience to the guys who'll help next year. It will help keep the White Sox out of the playoffs and continue what they started this week.
So now, in my mind, the only remaining series that matters is the Yankees series. Again, they are not getting back in the race, but they need a little revenge for that last series. It would also be a shame to let a two month collapse by the Sox taint an otherwise totally even head-to-head record over the last 4 years. So the season may be over, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to play for.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Travis Hafner Is A Mediocre Baseball Player
He's so average he has never played on an all star team, or won a major award (even a silver slugger!). The Galdstoner and I have spent some time looking into his stats, so I present a comparison of Hafner to several other perennial MVP candidates over the last three years. (all from baseball prospectus).
EqA 2004; 2005; 2006
Hafner: .326; .332; .349
Manny: .316; .318; .342
Ortiz: .309; .324; .325
Arod: .300; .338; .293
Guerrero .323; .323; .309
Pujols: .342; .344; .349
Bonds .456; .340; .334
EqA is a rate stat, so to include # of PA's, we'll look at BRAA:
BRAA (Batting Runs Above Average)
Hafner: 45; 50; 59 => 154
Manny: 44; 45; 51 => 140
Ortiz: 39; 54; 45 => 138
Arod: 32; 67; 22 => 121
Guerrero 51; 45; 34 => 130
Pujols: 69; 70; 57 => 196
Bonds: 128; 5; 34 => 167
The only one there who has been consistently better is Pujols. But he is in the other league, so they are in competition for nothing other than endorsement deals. So, here are ESPN's listings of his AL ranks this year:
Ya, he is clearly not one of the two or three best DH/1B's so as to make the AS team. Or get some sort of award. Maybe they should have the non-Sox or Yankees set of awards. Though, that would undermine the Sox/Yanks centrism that the Galdstoner and I are fighting so hard to perpetuate.
EqA 2004; 2005; 2006
Hafner: .326; .332; .349
Manny: .316; .318; .342
Ortiz: .309; .324; .325
Arod: .300; .338; .293
Guerrero .323; .323; .309
Pujols: .342; .344; .349
Bonds .456; .340; .334
EqA is a rate stat, so to include # of PA's, we'll look at BRAA:
BRAA (Batting Runs Above Average)
Hafner: 45; 50; 59 => 154
Manny: 44; 45; 51 => 140
Ortiz: 39; 54; 45 => 138
Arod: 32; 67; 22 => 121
Guerrero 51; 45; 34 => 130
Pujols: 69; 70; 57 => 196
Bonds: 128; 5; 34 => 167
The only one there who has been consistently better is Pujols. But he is in the other league, so they are in competition for nothing other than endorsement deals. So, here are ESPN's listings of his AL ranks this year:
| Ranks 2nd in AL in HR (42) | Ranks 2nd in AL in RBI (117) |
| Ranks 3rd in AL in R (100) | Ranks 2nd in AL in BB (100) |
| Ranks 2nd in AL in OBP (.439) | Ranks 1st in AL in SLG (.659) |
| Ranks 1st in AL in OPS (1.097) |
Ya, he is clearly not one of the two or three best DH/1B's so as to make the AS team. Or get some sort of award. Maybe they should have the non-Sox or Yankees set of awards. Though, that would undermine the Sox/Yanks centrism that the Galdstoner and I are fighting so hard to perpetuate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
