Leading Batsman

[Hammerin Hank]

Who will lead the A's in batting average?

[Hammerin Hank]

My predictions:

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

[The Commissioner]

I'm going with their new catcher, here.

[playboykilla187]

My Thoughts

Mark Kotsay: .328
Erubiel Durazo: .322
Jason Kendall: .310
Eric Byrnes: .288
Scott Hatteberg: .272

[Zito75]

My predictions:

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

Sounds good to me!

[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.

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

[playboykilla187]

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.

[Catfish27]

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.

[playboykilla187]

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.

[Zito75]

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... :gt

[Catfish27]

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.

[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.

[Zito75]

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.

[playboykilla187]

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.

[Hammerin Hank]

As of 4/27:

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