Leading Batsman

[Catfish27]

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!)

[Zito75]

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. :grouchy

[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.

[Zito75]

Looks like Durazo has officially fallen off the face of the planet. Anyone have any idea what happened?

[Hammerin Hank]

As of 5/18:

Kotsay: .292
Hatteberg: .286
Durazo: .250
Scutaro: .237
Kendall: .234
Chavez: .205

[The Commissioner]

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

[Catfish27]

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.

[Hammerin Hank]

As of 4/27:

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.