Piggyback to: 2010 in Review: Team Offense

by MrNegative1 on Oct 5, 2010 9:24 PM EDT

I wanted to share this link and not get lost in the comments to the 2010 in Review: Team Offense.

I thought the season by Valbuena (.193 batting average in 310 plate appearances) would be hard to top. I ran the originally list and found a lot of guys with 100 at bats or less with less than .195 batting average, so I ran the .195 batting average for players between 150 plate appearances and 325 plate appearances. Amazing that Lou Marson and Luis Valbuena both accomplished that in 2010, first teammates to do it since John Lowenstein and Ted Ford did it in 1971.

http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/x9P5E

Rk	Player	BA	PA	Year 6	Age
1	Luis Valbuena	.193	310	2010	24
2	Lou Marson	.195	294	2010	24
3	Tony Pena	.195	195	1996	39
4	Rick Dempsey	.177	170	1987	37
5	Chris Bando	.139	199	1985	29
6	Rusty Torres	.187	169	1974	25
7	John Lowenstein	.186	159	1971	24
8	Ted Ford	.194	206	1971	24
9	Richie Scheinblum	.186	222	1969	26
10	Tony Martinez	.156	151	1963	23
11	Woodie Held	.194	166	1958	26
12	Billy Hunter	.195	214	1958	30
13	Merl Combs	.165	155	1952	32
14	Johnny Berardino	.190	179	1948	31
15	Pat Seerey	.171	251	1947	24
16	Gene Woodling	.188	155	1946	23
17	Jim Hegan	.194	184	1942	21
18	Frankie Pytlak	.141	172	1940	31
19	Lou Guisto	.181	164	1923	28
20	Lou Guisto	.185	233	1917	22
21	Ivan Howard	.187	294	1916	33
22	Walter Barbare	.191	274	1915	23
23	Fritz Buelow	.172	254	1905	29
24	Nig Clarke	.195	272	1905	22

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 10/5/2010.

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Also, just noticed that in 2002 Brandon Inge (24 year old catcher) hit .180 for the Detroit Tigers, 0 HR, 15 RBI and 41K’s in 202 Plate Appearances. Is there hope for Marson to turn it around as well?

by MrNegative1 on Oct 5, 2010 9:53 PM EDT reply actions

At least Marson had some redeeming qualities with his defense. Can’t say the same with Valbuena.

by Ryan on Oct 6, 2010 5:46 AM EDT up reply actions

Can’t believe anyone is willing to discard Marson.

by odradek on Oct 7, 2010 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions

Fascinating how you cheerlead for Marson after vehemently dumping on Shoppach.

by Jay on Oct 7, 2010 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions

I’m trying to be positive.

by odradek on Oct 7, 2010 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions

That too is fascinating.

by Jay on Oct 7, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions

I’ve always found this interesting as well.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 8, 2010 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Watch Shoppach swing. Watch Marson swing. One of them has a better approach. I dislike players who swing for the fences every time up. TTO doesn’t do much for me.

by odradek on Oct 8, 2010 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions

I guess I just don’t dislike guys who swing for the fences as much as you do.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 8, 2010 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions

How many times did we see Shoppach at the plate, needing simply to put the ball in play, swinging so hard he nearly falls down? (At pitches two feet outside the strike zone.) Pitchers knew he wouldn’t adjust, so they either went up the ladder with him, or down and away. He strikes me as a dumb player.

I like smart players, like Tony Gwynn.

by odradek on Oct 8, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Also! Marson is 24. When Shoppach was 24 he was still in Pawtucket. I know this has something to do with Cap Varitek, but to me Marson has potential for OBP, opposite field hitting, and doubles. None of which Shoppach had.

by odradek on Oct 8, 2010 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions

I looked at something like this in a game thread. Here are the number of plate appearances taken by a player who finished with an OPS for the year of less than 650

2004 – 493
2005 – 567
2006 – 241
2007 – 655
2008 – 643
2009 – 431
2010 – 1996

Some of this needs to be discounted because of the league wide offensive lull, but even if you count the players below 600 this year, there were 967 PA. We committed to the rebuild this year. Will 2011 be a year of similar patience?

by dgcambridge on Oct 6, 2010 12:01 AM EDT reply actions

These are just Indians, of course. And I typed this in myself, so there could be an error here or there, but I think this year stands out clearly.

by dgcambridge on Oct 6, 2010 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions

I think we had a combination of rebuilding AND filling in for injured stars this year, that’s what got that total so high. Although allegedly we were not rebuilding the lineup. In other words, pretending Brantley was ready to be a decent hitter is part of the problem here.

Amazingly, we had 1996 PA for guys who OPS’ed under 650 … but only 188 for Marte, who was better than that. This season arguably was the most stunning yet in terms of not letting that guy play, given the utter lack of decent options and his super-strong season in the minors last year.

by Jay on Oct 6, 2010 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Agree. Though Brantley fits a bit in the injury replacement and building themes. Not true with someone like Crowe.

But (SPOILER: OPTIMISM AHEAD), only Brantley on that list is slated for full time at-bats, and they could curtail those if they bring in an outsider, meaning that there is some hope for a quick offensive turn-around.

by dgcambridge on Oct 6, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions

It’s odd (to me, at least) that you haven’t come to the conclusion that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to Marte. The Indians aren’t interested in giving him plate appearances, and there must be a very good excuse for their not letting Marte play. I don’t think it’s stunning at all, because they have already made it clear that—despite their lack of decent options and Marte’s super-strong season in the minors last year—they’ve already written him off. We don’t know why, but they must have a pretty damn good reason.

by odradek on Oct 7, 2010 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree. That’s why I stopped writing about it a long time ago.

by Jay on Oct 7, 2010 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions

And, my point, which I neglected to make, is that—if we knew—we all might agree such a reason was sufficient to keep him on the bench.

by odradek on Oct 7, 2010 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions

He’s 5 years older than what we think he is.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 8, 2010 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions

That really would explain just about everything. That precocious age-21 season in Triple-A? It was a 26-year-old non-prospect peaking. Age-19 in High-A becomes age-24. The big 2009 in Columbus? The dominance of a 30-year-old minor league veteran who’s learned to dominate the kids.

by Jay on Oct 8, 2010 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions

That would explain his early-onset baldness as well.

by odradek on Oct 8, 2010 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Will 2011 be a year of similar patience?

What are the options?

by odradek on Oct 7, 2010 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions

When you are getting below replacement-level production, you go out and get replacement-level production. That’s a gross oversimplification, but the point being that it wouldn’t have taken much effort or money to get better production. I think we had our eye on the long haul.

by dgcambridge on Oct 7, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions