Off In Leff Field

Is there anything in baseball quite as intense as a walk-off home run? After nine hard-fought innings, a single crack of the bat and the ball carries with it the entire fate of the day. It hovers in the air while thousands pray to God or to gravity that it will land just a few feet - just an inch would be enough - on one side or another of the outfield wall.

On a day of last minute drama in sports on Monday, when Mario Chalmers’s buzzer-beating three-pointer sent the NCAA Tournament’s last game to overtime, baseball fans were treated to two walk-off home runs.

First, there was the home opener in Houston against the Cardinals. Houston had the lead 3-0 going into the ninth inning, when Jose Valverde came in to finish off the Cards. But that he couldn’t do, giving up a single to Troy Glaus and a double to Ryan Ludwick. 3-3. The game went to the bottom of the ninth, and Carlos Lee singled for Houston, which brought Miguel Tejada to the plate.

Baseball fans have been saying for some time that Tejada is past his prime and won’t contribute in Houston. Well, tonight the Astros were happy to have him, as he took a Kyle McClellan pitch deep towards the right field stands, hooking towards the pole….but it lands fair for a 5-3 Houston victory.

Then there was the endless drama of the Indians and the Angels, two of the top teams in baseball. The game was a pitcher’s duel most of the way between Joe Saunders and Fausto Carmona. A Cleveland run in the fourth and an Angel run in the sixth made for all of the scoring until the Angels finally broke through on a Torii Hunter solo shot in the bottom of the eighth. And with K-Rod coming in from the bullpen, the Halos looked to have a sure win. But even K-Rod sometimes struggles, and today he walked the first man in the inning. A bad omen, and he went on to give up three runs and put the Indians on top 4-2. Now it was Joe Borowski’s turn to close, but he couldn’t find his stuff either, and the bases were soon loaded, once again, for Torii Hunter.

Hunter’s earlier blast should have been a game winner, but here was a shot once again for the newest Angel to have the winning swing. And he wasted no time, turning on Borowski’s second pitch, unleashing it deep into the night, high and over the outfield wall. Hunter had just blasted a walk-off grand slam.

The 2008 season has, as of April 7, truly begun. There were some nonsense games in Japan and a few insignificant openers, but last night was a reminder of what baseball should be about - last minute intensity when every pitch is one to hold your breath for. Notably, the two players to hit walk-offs yesterday were two big-name offseason acquisitions. They have announced themselves in their respective cities, heralding us into the new season, first in Houston, then in Anaheim, and then everywhere else. It’s time for baseball, ladies and gentlemen. God, I love this game.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I have long been a defender of the statistics revolution in baseball. Though I don’t have a mathematical mind, I believe that the use of numbers eliminates the “human element,” the biased judgment that we often have when looking at players or teams we admire. As one who watches baseball, I would never want to lose that element. But as one who judges and analyzes players and teams, having an unbiased tool to examine talent is invaluable.

But sadly, the old saying is true. You can make statistics jump through hoops.

It has become trendy among mathematicians and statisticians, even those who know nothing about baseball and wouldn’t know Babe Ruth from Babe the pig, to publish studies on baseball statistics. More often than not, those studies purport to contradict some widely agreed-upon piece of baseball knowledge. Nobody would be interested in reading a study that proved Willie Mays was a better hitter than Ozzie Smith, of course. Unfortunately, too often the low baseball knowledge of those doing the study leads to a fallacy in the study, rendering its conclusions moot.

Take, for example, a recent article published in the New York Times that claims to prove that Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak, long believed to be one of the nigh unreachable records in baseball, isn’t as unlikely as we all think. Here’s how they did it:

Think of baseball players’ performances at bat as being like coin tosses. Hitting streaks are like runs of many heads in a row. Suppose a hypothetical player named Joe Coin had a 50-50 chance of getting at least one hit per game, and suppose that he played 154 games during the 1941 season. We could learn something about Coin’s chances of having a 56-game hitting streak in 1941 by flipping a real coin 154 times, recording the series of heads and tails, and observing what his longest streak of heads happened to be.

Their conclusions were pretty revolutionary if one believes them. In more than half of their alternate universes, the longest hitting streak was longer than 53 games. Forty-two percent of the universes have a record streak of 56 games or longer.

Sadly, these researchers have either no knowledge of baseball or chose to ignore the obvious: no player has the same likelihood of getting a hit every day. Conditions change. Teams face good and bad pitchers. They go to hitter’s parks and to pitcher’s parks. They play in cold, unpleasant weather and hot, muggy conditions. They play in perfect health and through fatigue and often injury. And then there are the psychological concerns. A hitter in the modern day gets swarmed with questions about Joe D’s record once he has a hitting streak reaching 30. Imagine the media frenzy if he were to legitimately approach the record. The pressure on such a hitter would be near unbearable.

Let’s take a look at Joltin’ Joe’s streak. During it, Joe faced four different future Hall-of-Fame pitchers (Lefty Grove, Bob Feller twice, Hal Newhouser twice and Ted Lyons). He played in seven double-headers. No rational person could say that DiMaggio’s odds of getting a hit against a pitcher like Feller, or in game 2 of a double-header, were 81 percent. Adjustments have to be made.

If you were to go through the 1941 season and hand-pick 56 Yankee games from it, you could easily find enough games in which DiMaggio’s odds of a hit were 81 percent. But hitting streaks aren’t made up of random games, but consecutive ones. In any long series of games, a team will inevitably face many good pitchers and go through struggles. That’s what makes a long hitting streak so incredible.

Statistics are perhaps, by their nature, a more trustworthy tool than human observation, but that does not render human observation useless. Our minds are powerful factories that process information. If something is conventional baseball wisdom, it is that way because decades of experts have observed and studied and come to that conclusion. That means it’s going to take a lot more than a single study to prove it wrong. Some statisticians say that clutch hitting doesn’t exist, but their studies are fallacious as well. Usually, the stats that try to turn baseball knowledge on its head are in error.

In the real world, DiMaggio’s streak is safe.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Yeah, I know, I’ve neglected this blog for well more time than I should have. Bench Coach has been dominating much of my attention. So apologies to anybody who has been waiting to hear from me. But baseball season has technically started. Don’t get me going on the problems with playing regular season games overseas, but it does feel great to be able to check the standings again. The “real” start of summer is less than a week away.

So now it’s time for a little analysis. I’ve taken the latest Vegas over/unders and picked each team. Keep in mind, I’m no professional gambler. I put these up here for fun. Feel free to take my advice and bet with it, but don’t blame me if you get your kneecaps busted.

Arizona - 86.5: Over
Their offense is underwhelming, but some young position players have the chance for breakout years, and the addition of Dan Haren makes the Arizona rotation one of the elite in the National League.

Atlanta - 84.5: Over
The Braves underperformed in 2007. But they have a strong team with a good pitching staff and Mark Teixeira in a walk year. The Mets will be tough to beat but Atlanta should eat up Washington and Florida.

Baltimore - 65.5: Under
They don’t have a clear fifth starter, they lack depth, the bullpen is shallow and Brian Roberts is likely to get traded. Nick Markakis alone can’t win 66 games.

Boston - 93.5: Over
The Schilling injury is troublesome, but Boston’s offense is tremendous, the starting rotation remains strong and the 1-2 punch in the 8^th and 9^th inning are as good as anyone’s. What’s not to like?

Chicago(NL) - 87.5: Under
The upside for the Cubs is large, but the question marks are hanging around: How long will Kerry Wood stay healthy? Will Geovany Soto live up to the hype? Can they trade for a solid leadoff hitter? If everything lands in Cubbie favor, it could be a good season at Wrigley, but there are too many ifs.

Chicago(AL) - 79.5: Over
You could attribute the collapse of the White Sox in 2007 to age. I call it an off year. There are players on that team too good to have another year that awful. It’ll be a comeback year for the ChiSox who should be above .500.

Cincinnati - 79.5: Over
I like the offense. I don’t like the starting pitching. But there’s a lot of parity in the NL Central, with teams on Cincy’s level, and the Pirates are an easy target. The Reds should keep themselves around the middle of the pack.

Cleveland - 88.5: Over
What are the oddsmakers smoking? This team has a top-of-the-line ace in a contract year and a lineup with multiple studs. They won 96 games in 2007 and are returning the team essentially intact. If they don’t win 89 at least, the Indians failed miserably.

Colorado - 82.5: Under
There’s a lot of upside, but Matt Holliday might see a drop off after a career year. The loss of Kaz Matsui is troublesome as well. Though he didn’t blow anyone away with numbers, he was an integral part of the team. Last year should look like a blip on a radar screen soon, since it took an unexpected streak to get the Rox to the postseason.

Detroit - 93.5: Under
They were a quality team in 2007, but the addition of Miguel Cabrera gives the Tigers the most potent lineup in baseball. Dontrelle Willis may not be his old self, but as a fifth starter he’ll be more than sufficient. That tremendous lineup has a solid pitching staff to help it out, anchored by Justin Verlander. Still, around 92 wins is what you can expect from them.

Florida - 68.5: Under
Hanley Ramirez may be a top fantasy pick, but can he carry a team with no other upside? Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis are gone, leaving both the pitching and the offense to struggle. If they get lucky and have a few breaks, the Marlins could hit 70 wins, but don’t count on it.

Houston - 72.5: Over
They’re not a .500 ball club, but they’re solid at every position. Hunter Pence is due for a breakout season, making Miguel Tejada and Lance Berkman even more dangerous. With Roy Oswalt anchoring the rotation, the Astros should win a few ball games.

Kansas City - 71.5: Over
Tough choice, but there’s just too much upside to pick against the Royals winning 72. Alex Gordon, Joakim Soria and Billy Butler have a chance to break out. Gil Meche and Brian Bannister could push themselves even further this year.

Los Angeles(AL) - 91.5: Under
I picked them to win all the marbles, but that was before Lackey and Escobar went down with injury. They’ve still got a great shot to win the division, but the early season pitching issues could cost them enough games that 92 wins will be out of their reach.

Los Angeles(NL) - 87.5: Over
The Dodgers aren’t getting the respect they deserve. They’re loaded with young, talented players, all of whom will do nothing but improve. And the best thing for young players to have is a good coach. Joe Torre may be overrated as a manager, but he has experience with winning and can handle the youngsters.

Milwaukee - 84.5: Under
There’s talent, but I just don’t see a breakout team. Prince Fielder is being hyped far too much after one great season. Ryan Braun could be the real deal, but how often do sudden studs fail? The pitching could carry them, but not to a season as good as last year’s.

Minnesota - 72.5: Over
With all the focus on what the Twins lost (Johan Santana), people have forgotten what the Twins still have: Francisco Liriano, Joe Nathan, Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau. Not a team that’ll compete for the division title, but one that could hang around and win 75 games.

New York(NL) - 93.5: Under
They may have Johan, but the depth is a worry. They don’t have a solid right hander off the bench, few options to replace an injured starting pitcher, a decimated farm system and so on. Any injury (Moises Alou?) or slump (Carlos Delgado?) could cost them ball games. The Mets are easily the team to beat in the NL East, but they’ll probably win it with about 90 victories.

New York(AL) - 93.5: Under
Too old and too young, the Bombers are. The likes of Posada, Jeter and Mariano are well past their prime, as is Mike Mussina. Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes may have bright futures, but few pitchers break out in their first full season. The Yanks have a bright future brewing, but the future isn’t today.

Oakland - 73.5: Over
Joe Blanton doesn’t get the credit he deserves. With Haren gone, Blanton is the ace and pitching leader, and I think he’s up to the task. Don’t expect the A’s to bust down the doors of Anaheim or Seattle, but they could make some progress.

Philadelphia - 87.5: Under
The offense is still the best the National League has to offer, but the pitching staff is just plain weak. Cole Hamels is a walking injury, Brad Lidge will struggle in his new hitter-friendly home, Jamie Moyer and Adam Eaton are a joke. Offense and depth are what the Phils have going for them, but scoring 6 runs means nothing when the opponent scores 7.

Pittsburgh - 68.5: Over
They’re an awful team, yes, but the NL Central is probably baseball’s most balanced division. There will be win opportunities for the Pirates, even with their miserable roster. The new management should help a little as well.

San Diego - 84.5: Over
The Padres remain, as they have been for some time, a team based entirely on pitching with little hitting to speak of. Even their fifth starter, Justin Germano, can contribute. The old baseball adage says you can’t win 1-0 every day, but you can certainly win 85 games with that kind of pitching.

San Francisco - 71.5: Under
Plain and simple, the Giants should be the worst team in baseball this year. Their best hitter is Aaron Rowand, for crying out loud. The NL West could be the deepest division in baseball - far from the best, but the deepest. 72 wins? The Giants will be lucky to have 27 wins.

Seattle - 86.5: Under
A solid team, but why they’re getting so much attention I can’t understand. There’s not much power in a lineup of mediocre contact hitters, and Erik Bedard is substantially overvalued. Felix Hernandez might have a phenomenal year, but it just won’t be enough.

St. Louis - 78.5: Under
The Redbirds don’t have much upside. I like Colby Rasmus in the videos I’ve seen, but Pujols is a question mark and might opt for surgery if the Cards don’t stay competitive. There’s very little in St. Louis to be hopeful about.

Tampa Bay - 73.5: Over
The worst team in baseball last year is on the upswing. Scott Kazmir’s health might be an issue, but if he stays healthy, this might be Tampa Bay’s year to finally prove they belong in the Majors. Upton and Longoria are among baseball’s future stars, and Carl Crawford doesn’t get his due because of the small market he plays in. Cliff Floyd gives the Rays a good DH and defensive depth if he stays healthy.

Texas - 74.5: Under
If everything clicks for the Rangers, I’ll look foolish for betting against them. But the odds of it all coming together are small. The loss of Mark Teixeira was a hurtful one for Texas. Their offense has little promise and their starting pitchers are old and injury-prone. I’d gamble that Jason Jennings could have a comeback year, but that won’t carry a woeful team.

Toronto - 85.5: Under
The Jays are a good team. Their pitching is solid and their offense has good hitters up and down. If B.J. Ryan is healthy, they’ll win most of their games when they lead late. It’s the division - maybe baseball’s best - that does not bode well for Toronto. In any other division, I’d say over. In the AL East, I say 82 wins.

Washington - 70.5: Over
Hardly a competitive team, but the new ballpark will help the offense out. Lastings Milledge is a breakout candidate. Nats fans have a long way to go before popping any corks, but they should be a better team than they were in 2007.

• Leave a comment... (0)

For the upcoming season, I’ll be blogging at benchcoach.com about fantasy baseball.  In addition to the blog, benchcoach.com will have a set of analytic features that will enable users to try out different lineups and evaluate the projected effect it will have on their team. They’ll be able to analyze trades, analyze player movements, make projections and more. Another feature will be the what-if machine where a user can go back in time for their league and see if the trade they rejected in July would have pushed them over the edge for first place.  The site is still under construction, but it’ll soon be a great place to improve your fantasy team.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Calling Brian McNamee’s credibility into question would be one thing, but the partisanship in today’s Congressional hearing was almost unfathomable. I can’t explain why. Maybe it’s because of Clemens’s relationship with the president, but the Republicans attacked McNamee and defended Clemens to a degree of absurdity. It was so partisan that Waxman himself had to apologize to McNamee for the behavior of his colleagues. Here’s a couple quotes from the Republican side:

Dan Burton: You’re here as a sworn witness. You’re here to tell the truth. You’re here under oath. And yet we have lie after lie after lie after lie…I know one thing I don’t believe and that’s you…With all these lies, you are destroying him [Clemens] and his reputation.

(Those lies Burton refers to were lies told over a year ago to the press and not under oath. McNamee has already confirmed he lied in the past. Even if this does impugn his credibility, the vileness and bias of Burton’s statement is uncalled for.)

Christopher Shays: You were a drug dealer. You were dealing drugs.

(McNamee was by no means a dealer, and even if he was, what relevance does this have?)

Then Virginia Foxx went on to show four pictures of Clemens from different times in his career and point out that his body looks to be the same size. The ridiculousness of this line of “evidence” doesn’t even need to be expounded upon.

The evidence is just piling up against Clemens. The shred of faith the public had in him is mostly gone. We still had a chance to doubt McNamee, but things have changed. Now Andy Pettitte has confirmed what McNamee has said, as has Chuck Knoblauch. If McNamee had a reason to lie, what’s Pettitte’s reason? Thank goodness for Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings, who pointed out Pettitte’s level of honesty in his deposition and his reputation for honesty, and the fact that Pettitte serves as a third party to rely on.

Roger’s response? Pettitte misheard.

Now we’re expected to believe that McNamee risked jail time to throw his friend under the bus, and Pettitte - Clemens’s best friend in the world - misheard a conversation to such a degree that he told his wife shortly after the conversation (his wife confirmed the story), and was so sure of his mistake that he was also willing to crush Clemens?

 You can hear the entirety of Cummings’s questioning of Clemens here, and watch the Rocket fizzle off as the facts are presented to him.

That’s not to mention Knoblauch’s testimony, nannygate, and numerous other lines of evidence that point to Roger’s guilt. Things are looking worse and worse for Roger, and no amount of Republican partisanship can alter that.

• Leave a comment... (0)

The Santanathon is over, and the Mets have come out with the title. Who’d have expected that when the winter started? It looked to be a two-horse race. I myself said that it would be a game of one-upmanship between the Yankees and Red Sox, but Twins GM Bill Smith just played Deal or No Deal a little too long and got stuck with the worst of his four options. The Mets gave up essentially nothing for Santana. None of the prospects have proven themselves at a Major League level.

Give credit where credit is due - Omar Minaya turned a disaster into a dream for the Mets. He came to the poker table with fewer chips than any other participant, but when he was offered Santana for a pricy package, he didn’t blink. For all the pressure that was on him to make the deal, he wouldn’t until the price came down.

Now the Mets are again the team to beat in the NL East. Yesterday, I said the Phillies were improving and the Mets were lagging behind, but the race has begun anew and the Mets have taken the reins. Instead of being an ace, Pedro Martinez will be a #2 starter, and one of the better #2s in the league. John Maine, well on the path to being an ace himself, moves down to #3. Santana gives the Mets the best rotation in the division if not the league.

There is one thing the Mets need to do if they want to wipe the slate clean from last year: grow up. On paper, the Mets look excellent, but as a team, they’re like children. Somebody needs to sit them down and tell them that there’s a manner they need to behave in. Take Billy Wagner, for example, who’s been mouthing off all offseason about the Mets being the third best team in the division. It’s one thing to think it, but don’t show your lack of faith to the public.

There isn’t a Mets fan alive who wants to hear me say this, but the Mets should run their team more like the Yankees. When a Yankee puts on the pinstripes, he’s had it made clear that he is an employee, and his job is to play baseball to the best of his ability and represent the Yankees to the public. That means no bling, no excessive facial hair, and certainly no public statements that poorly represent the team. That’s how to run a team. With the Super Bowl approaching, I point to the Pats and Giants as great examples. All season long, the Patriots never trash-talked, never talked about 16-0, never talked about anything but winning the next football game. And the Giants started the first practice of the season wearing t-shirts reading: “Talk is cheap. Play the game.” Somebody get that message to the Mets.

Still, the 2008 Mets will be a better team than in 2007, and have a good chance to take control of the division once again.

• Leave a comment... (2)

Roger Clemens’s self-defense just gets loonier and loonier. First it was his insistence upon his innocence, which was perfectly acceptable. Then the Mike Wallace interview, which was essentially a game of tee-ball with the easy questions Wallace lobbed to Clemens. Then the press conference and the phone call. Now he’s released a report comparing himself statistically to other pitchers at his age, pointing out he comparable his stats are to those who didn’t take steroids. It has its own domain name, for Christ’s sake.

This has to be the silliest thing Clemens has done in his own defense. So what if he’s statistically similar? Mark Carreon was mentioned in the Mitchell Report. Know who he was statistically similar to? Every player that was mediocre for 10 years or so. Are we to assume that either Mark Carreon was clean or every mediocre player is on steroids?

If we are to assume that, because of the Rocket’s similarity to pitchers like Curt Schilling, that all the great pitchers of our generation were dopers, it would be believable. But given everything that points against Clemens, it’s hard to believe that he was clean. So the more likely scenario is that Roger’s body just broke down faster than many of his colleagues’ bodies, and he took the juice to keep up, leading to his statistical similarity. That’s a way more likely set of circumstances than Brian McNamee risking jail time to railroad his good friend.

Every time Clemens kicks and screams, he looks more and more guilty. There was a modicum of believability in him when he first made his claim that he didn’t use steroids, but with the absurdity of the defense he’s using, he looks absurd. Here’s some unsolicited advice, Roger: shut the heck up.

• Leave a comment... (0)

In just about every way you can measure, the Phillies are the worst team in baseball history. Just this year, they lost their ten-thousandth game, more than any professional sports franchise in history, and in terms of all time win percentage their near MLB’s cellar. Ask any Phillies fan why this is, and he’ll tell you that it’s a lack of dedication on the part of his team.

Not this offseason. The Phillies could have rested on their laurels after making an historic comeback in the NL East, but instead, they’re improving a team that can defend its title. No single move from the Phillies has been large enough to make national headlines. They haven’t traded for a stud pitcher like so many teams have been looking to do. But they’ve made several small improvements to an already impressive team. They added Brad Lidge, shoring up a bullpen that was the team’s biggest question mark in 2007. They added Geoff Jenkins to improve an outfield that lost Aaron Rowand (overrated though Rowand may be). Now they’re on the verge of signing Pedro Feliz, meaning they’ll have a clear third-baseman in 2008, whereas in 2007 they didn’t.

The Mets, on the other hand, have done little so far. Though they remain the frontrunners for Johan Santana, the only move the Mets have made of any significance was trading Lastings Milledge, which only made the team worse. The Mets have an aging starting rotation, and they lost Paul LoDuca to free agency to boot. The grass looks green in Philadelphia right now.

Maybe this is a new era for the Phillies, one in which they will actually stand up to be competitive long term. Much of the team is young and has a bright future, most notably Cole Hamels. That all remains to be seen, but the new attitude is a good sign for the Phils.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Baseball fans love statistics. It’s a fact. They love statistics to the point where they attempt to measure the value of a player by his numbers. This has naturally caused problems, but the art of baseball stats has become more and more sophisticated over time. Hello, sabermetrics.

The trouble with sabermetrics is the extensive amount of mathematical knowledge they require. Frankly, I can’t keep up with Win Shares and VORP because looking at the equations for them just makes me dizzy. Hey, if you know your derivatives from your denominators, more power to you. But for those of us who think “Calculus” is the name of a fictional vampire, sabermetrics are pretty much unusable.

One of the objections I have to most common offensive statistics is that they measure production only for the batter himself. Only RBI measures clutch performances. A batter who hits 5 homers and 5 singles, all with runners in scoring position, will have the same batting average, the same slugging percentage, and so forth as a batter who does the same thing with the bases empty. There are sabermetrics that measure a batter’s value in a lineup, but I’ve created a statistic that measures a batter’s productivity without using complex math. I’d like to propose to anyone within earshot that they consider using it.

I call it Bases Created (BC). It would be more successfully used as an average - Bases Created per Plate Appearance or BCA - but I’ll explain the overall concept first. It’s similar to Total Bases, except it accounts for all runners on base. Bases Created is the total number of bases that a batter advances himself and any runners. So, for example, if there are runners on second and third and a batter hits a single, scoring both runners, he earns four total bases - one for advancing himself from home to first, one for advancing the runner at third to home, and two for advancing the runner at second to home.

With Bases Created, you can measure a batter’s productivity for his team as a whole - not just if he hits, but if he hits at opportune times. The batter in the scenario above would earn four bases, while a batter who hits a bases-empty single earns only one. A three-run homer is worth at least nine bases, while a solo home run earns only four. A walk with a runner on first is worth more than a walk with first base open. Using this stat, we can analyze how often a batter takes advantage of the opportunities given to him and how much he produces for his team’s whole offense, not just himself. Even pitchers get credit for advancing runners on sacrifice bunts.

Bases Created would also take into account those runners erased from base. Any runner who is on base but is erased from the base paths because of a batter would be a -1 in Bases Created. A double play, for example, would subtract a base from a batter’s total, since he would create none for himself and lose one for the runner on first. A fielder’s choice would total 0 - minus for the runner erased, plus one for advancing yourself from home to first. I know of no other statistic that actually punishes a batter for grounding into a double play - except, of course, GIDP, whose purpose is to measure nothing but double plays.

The natural objection to BC and BCA is that hitters in stronger parts of a lineup will have more chances to create bases because runners will be on base ahead of them more often. Thus, it will be unfair. My response is, this stat is not meant to measure the raw talent of a hitter but what he does for his team. A hitter in the cleanup spot, by his very nature, produces more for his team than the number 8 hitter, and the stat will accurately reflect that.

Because of my utter devotion, I went back to the World Series play by play and calculated the BC and BCA of every hitter that created at least one base.

Red Sox
Lowell - 25, 1.389
Ellsbury - 23, 1.278
Varitek - 20, 1.250
Ortiz - 20, 1.176
Pedroia - 20, 1.000
Drew - 18, 1.059
Lugo - 14, 0.875
Ramirez - 12, 0.667
Youkilis - 11, 0.917
Matsuzaka - 6, 2.000
Kielty - 4, 4.000
Crisp - 2, 1.000
Cora - 1, 1.000

Rockies
Atkins - 16, 0.941
Hawpe - 13, 0.765
Holliday - 13, 0.765
Helton - 12, .706
Tulowitzki - 11, 0.733
Matsui - 8, 0.471
Torrealba - 6, 0.429
Spilborghs - 3, 0.250
Smith - 2, 1.000
Cook - 1, 0.500
Sullivan - 1, 0.333
Taveras - 1, 0.111

If you look back on the Series and remember how productive each hitter was, you can see just how accurate these numbers are. The BCA for some of those who had few Plate Appearances is a bit bloated, but that’s to be expected.

If all goes well, BCA will follow in the footsteps of OPS, which burst onto the scene nobody knows exactly how and became one of the game’s most popular stats.

• Leave a comment... (4)