View Poll Results: Who will lead the A's in batting average?

Voters
5. You may not vote on this poll
  • Erubiel Durazo

    1 20.00%
  • Mark Kotsay

    1 20.00%
  • Scott Hatteberg

    0 0%
  • Eric Byrnes

    0 0%
  • Jason Kendall

    3 60.00%
  • Other

    0 0%
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Leading Batsman

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Woodridge, IL
    Posts
    8,584

    Leading Batsman

    Who will lead the A's in batting average?
    Still lurks the BBF.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Woodridge, IL
    Posts
    8,584
    My predictions:

    Jason Kendall: .335
    Mark Kotsay: .317
    Erubiel Durazo: .305
    Eric Byrnes: .297
    Scott Hatteberg: .275
    Still lurks the BBF.

  3. #3
    I'm going with their new catcher, here.

  4. #4

    My Thoughts

    Mark Kotsay: .328
    Erubiel Durazo: .322
    Jason Kendall: .310
    Eric Byrnes: .288
    Scott Hatteberg: .272
    The King is back representing that Oak-town Killafornia.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerin Hank
    My predictions:

    Jason Kendall: .335
    Mark Kotsay: .317
    Erubiel Durazo: .305
    Eric Byrnes: .297
    Scott Hatteberg: .275
    Sounds good to me!
    WAR? Prove it!

    Trusted Traders: ttmman21, Dalkowski110, BoofBonser26, Kearns643, HudsonHarden, Extra Innings, MadHatter, Mike D., J.P., SShifflett

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    174
    Kendall will be learning a new league, so I don't expect he'll lead the team in hitting. I'm going with Rubi.

    I'm also a bit surprised at some of the batting averages being predicted. Historically speaking, Oakland has had very few high average hitters, the large foul territory at the Coliseum likely a prime contributor to that. In the past 25 years they've never had more than 2 regulars hit .300 or better in the same season, and have frequently had -0- .300 hitters.

    2004
    Durazo .321
    Kotsay .314

    2003
    None

    2002
    Tejada .308

    2001
    Giambi .342

    2000
    Giambi .333

    1999
    Giambi .315

    1998
    None

    1997
    None

    1996
    McGwire .312
    Brosius .304

    1995
    R.Henderson .300

    1994
    Berroa .306

    1993
    R.Henderson .327

    1992
    Bordick .300

    1991
    None

    1990
    R.Henderson .325

    1989
    Lansford .336

    1988
    Canseco .307
    D.Henderson .304

    1987
    None

    1986
    None

    1985
    None

    1984
    Lansford .300

    1983
    Lansford .308

    1982
    None

    1981
    R.Henderson .319

    1980
    R.Henderson .303

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Catfish27
    Kendall will be learning a new league, so I don't expect he'll lead the team in hitting. I'm going with Rubi.

    I'm also a bit surprised at some of the batting averages being predicted. Historically speaking, Oakland has had very few high average hitters, the large foul territory at the Coliseum likely a prime contributor to that. In the past 25 years they've never had more than 2 regulars hit .300 or better in the same season, and have frequently had -0- .300 hitters.
    Historically, the A's didn't have Kendall, Kotsay, and Durazo. And when they did have Kotsay, he batted .314. His career AVG is just under .290 and that's including his injury-ridden season in 2003. If you take away 2003 and his rookie and sophomore seasons when he was obviously still learning to hit, his AVG goes to .300. Ruby is generally not the greatest at hitting but is good at getting on-base. He has the most chance of the three to not hit .300. Kendall is a ridiculously good hitter and has a career AVG of .306. Plus, Kotsay didn't have any trouble mastering the AL pitching and Kendall is twice the hitter Kotsay is.

    What happened historically is really of no relevence now. Historically, the A's always had 3-4 big boppers in the line-up, now they have one. Historically (as in 2000 and after) they had great starting pitching, a bad-to-decent 'pen and a great closer. Now they don't. Historically, their manager wasn't as bad as Ken Macha, now it IS Ken Macha. History matters naught.
    The King is back representing that Oak-town Killafornia.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    174
    Isn't it a bit of a contradiction to say history is of "no relevance" and "matters naught" then use past performance, e.g., "career .306 hitter", to predict future performance?

    I understand that what happened in the past does not necessarily dictate what will happen in the future. As the saying goes, "There's a first time for everything." However, one must also consider the dynamics of the ballpark in which half of the their games will be played. Oakland just isn't conducive to producing high batting averages. I've been watching games in Oakland for over 30 years, so I think I have pretty good perspective on this.

    Historically, Kendall (.306 BA, .387 OBP, .418 SLG) is more adept at getting on base than Kotsay (.287 BA, .343 OBP, .425 SLG), but hardly "twice the hitter". Durazo's lifetime stats (.285 BA, .387 OBP, .497 SLG) indicate he hits with more power than either Kendall or Kotsay. My guess that he will hit for a higher average than those two is just that, a guess. For all I know Byrnes will continue to improve and top them all by hitting .350. We'll find out in October.

  9. #9

    What???

    If you seriously can't see the difference between using a players career numbers to predict future performance and using a franchises stat history to predict new players future performances then I'd have to say all hope is lost for you. Kendall is new. Kotsay is going into his second year on the A's and hit .314 in his first (in a new league). Durazo is generally not a high AVG hitter but he turned out to be one of the best hitters in the game last year. There is no reason why the A's shouldn't have AT LEAST two above-.300 hitters next year. And if players like Byrnes and Chavez continue to progress, 5 isn't completely out of the question.

    I'm still having trouble figuring out how Lansford hitting .336 in 1989 has anything at all to do with Kendall's ability to hit .300 in 2005. Maybe you could explain that.
    The King is back representing that Oak-town Killafornia.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,551
    Quote Originally Posted by playboykilla187
    I'm still having trouble figuring out how Lansford hitting .336 in 1989 has anything at all to do with Kendall's ability to hit .300 in 2005. Maybe you could explain that.
    I was wondering the same thing... Is there a correlation? If so, I am not making a connection. Explain, por favor....

    IMO, we could have 3 or 4 .300 hitters. Assuming Byrnes sticks around, he's got a shot. Same with Durazo. Kendall is almost a sure lock. Kotsay will hit around .305 or better. I'm really looking forward to the season and watching the young guns throw...
    WAR? Prove it!

    Trusted Traders: ttmman21, Dalkowski110, BoofBonser26, Kearns643, HudsonHarden, Extra Innings, MadHatter, Mike D., J.P., SShifflett

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    174
    My point is that it would be unprecedented for Oakland to have three .300 hitters.

    I'm not doubting Jason Kendall's talents, but it's my experience that there is often a drop off in performance when one changes leagues. There are exceptions this, of course, for instance Frank Robinson won the AL Triple Crown in 1966 after being traded from Cincinnati to Baltimore, but generally speaking there is usually a period of adjustment after a league change.

    Can we agree that Oakland is not conducive to high batting averages? I guarantee you that if you were to take the highly productive Boston Red Sox lineup and have them play half their games in Oakland, their stats would not be nearly as good. Place an otherwise run-of-the-mill player and have him play half his games in Colorado, his offensive stats will likely take a significant leap.

    As far as Lansford goes, 1989 was his 7th in Oakland and 12th in the American League. He was very familiar with the pitchers, umpires, and his home ballpark. He also was blessed to have to be surrounded by a veteran lineup on its way to it's 2nd consecutive AL pennant. In keeping with my main point that the Oakland lineup is not usually laden with .300 + hitters, he was the only Oakland regular to hit .300 that season.

  12. #12
    After reading that last paragraph, I realize that you fooled me. You see, I thought you were going to explain what Lanford's 1989 statline had to do with Kendall's 2005 statline, but clearly you didn't.
    The King is back representing that Oak-town Killafornia.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,551
    Quote Originally Posted by playboykilla187
    After reading that last paragraph, I realize that you fooled me. You see, I thought you were going to explain what Lanford's 1989 statline had to do with Kendall's 2005 statline, but clearly you didn't.
    I guess I'll have to reserve jugdement until Kendall HAS a 2005 stat line. But I sort of understand where Catfish is coming from- The A's have lived by the long ball the past 20 years or so. Having Beane & Macha calling the shots won't change any of that, since Beane is almost convinced that playing small ball makes too many outs, thus dropping run production. We'll see.
    WAR? Prove it!

    Trusted Traders: ttmman21, Dalkowski110, BoofBonser26, Kearns643, HudsonHarden, Extra Innings, MadHatter, Mike D., J.P., SShifflett

  14. #14
    While small ball is good for run production and overall offensive effectiveness, the complete lack of small ball will help raise stats such as BA and OBP. If you commit to the sac bunt, you will almost never get a hit. Even if you get on-base, it will most likely have been because of an error. If you attempt to hit, you (basically) have as good of a shot to get a hit as you average is. So if you you attempt 30 sac bunts a year, even one of those turning into a hit would be a great thing. But if you get those same 30 AB's and your average is .300, you will (or should) get 9 hits. That's a .300 BA vs. a .030 BA. The argument could be made over which is better given it's outside factors but no one can dispute the fact that small ball lowers a batting average.

    Basically what that means is that if Kendall is able to figure out AL pitching (which shouldn't be too hard since the AL West and Central, minus the Twins, have terrible pitching) then all signs point to him actually having a higher average than not only last year, but also his career-high .332 in 1999.
    The King is back representing that Oak-town Killafornia.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Woodridge, IL
    Posts
    8,584
    As of 4/27:

    Scutaro: .302
    Kotsay: .292
    Hatteberg: .284
    Kendall: .247
    Durazo: .243
    Swisher: .225
    Chavez: .181
    Still lurks the BBF.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    174
    Is it too late to change my pick to Kotsay?

    Well, Durazo had 3 hits yesterday to boost his average. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come.

    Meanwhile, Chavez is having the sort of start that Tejada did in 2003. Hopefully Chavy will get just as hot as Tejada did in the 2nd half of the season.

  17. #17
    Wow, I guess my prognostication skills are slightly lacking here. C'mon JK, you're making me look bad here.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Woodridge, IL
    Posts
    8,584
    As of 5/18:

    Kotsay: .292
    Hatteberg: .286
    Durazo: .250
    Scutaro: .237
    Kendall: .234
    Chavez: .205
    Still lurks the BBF.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,551
    Looks like Durazo has officially fallen off the face of the planet. Anyone have any idea what happened?
    WAR? Prove it!

    Trusted Traders: ttmman21, Dalkowski110, BoofBonser26, Kearns643, HudsonHarden, Extra Innings, MadHatter, Mike D., J.P., SShifflett

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    128
    Durazo has been on the DL since May 27th with an elbow injury. Batting just .237 with a $4,700,000 salary, he may be a poster boy for the A's this year.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucketfoot Al
    Durazo has been on the DL since May 27th with an elbow injury. Batting just .237 with a $4,700,000 salary, he may be a poster boy for the A's this year.
    Thanks Bucket Foot. I knew he was hurt, but never really looked to see what it was or the extent. From what I understand now, he's probably done for the year. I wish I could get a paper cut at work and collect $4.7 million.
    WAR? Prove it!

    Trusted Traders: ttmman21, Dalkowski110, BoofBonser26, Kearns643, HudsonHarden, Extra Innings, MadHatter, Mike D., J.P., SShifflett

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    174
    It's been awhile since I'd visited this message board (7/11/05) so I guess I'm overdue for a visit.

    My guess that Durazo would lead the team in hitting was about as wrong as you could get. A bad elbow will do that to a guy. (His last game in the green & gold was May 24, 2005.)

    However, my hotly contested assertion that the A's would not have three or more batters hit .300 or better proved accurate, though.

    My prediction that Kendall would have difficulties adjusting to the American League proved to be accurate, also.

    I guess two out of three isn't bad, right?

    After last year's debacle, I will not be predicting the A's leading batsman this year. (Let's hope the A's can avoid those dreaded elbow injuries!)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •