Purdy, Purdy, Purdy…Purdy bad.
According to both the Elias Sports Bureau and Bay Area stats guru David Feldman, the worst batting average of the modern era is considered to be the horrendous .210 mark of the 1910 Chicago White Sox. Although if you go back to the 19th century, that dubious honor goes to the .207 average of the 1888 Washington Nationals—whose catcher was Connie Mack, the future owner of the Athletics franchise when it was located in Philadelphia.
Mack contributed to that 1888 milestone season by batting .187 himself. The Nationals’ best hitter was outfielder William “Dummy” Hoy, who was deaf and mute. Hoy was said not to be offended by the nickname—or be distracted by anything else, apparently, because he batted .274 for that miserable team.
The A’s could use a Hoy right now. Nobody on their roster except Reddick (.271) is hitting better than .250. And this year’s team is definitely on track to surpass (underpass?) the A’s franchise-record-low .223 batting average set in 1908.
Yes, I know. Batting average isn’t everything. Batting average is overrated. I saw “Moneyball.” I understand the Billy Beane first commandment. Walks are as good as hits, right? And as a team, the A’s do own the 12th-most walks in the majors. But sooner or later, hits become mandatory. Which is why the A’s are 27th in runs scored.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. TVerik Posted: May 27, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4141391)For the last time, they are not. Walks are (were?) undervalued. The thing is not making outs.
But you need a mix of walks and hits to score runs. Only occasionally does a walk result in an RBI.
An offense without hits is like a boxer with an arm tied behind his back. He can still win occasional fights, but he's missing a vital tool.
Seriously. The A's are also last in the league in OBP. If they could be leading the league in OBP by hitting .350 as a team and never drawing a single walk, I reckon Billy Beane would be delighted.
I saw both games they've played against Texas so far this year, and while the result was a split, I felt for them. That is not a very good AAA lineup they've thrown out there – I mean, it might not be the worst lineup in a AAA league, but given their ages, if that were your actual AAA lineup, you'd promote Reddick, DFA everybody else, and take a mulligan.
Edit: The article is actually flat out wrong. The A's are 29th in runs scored and they are dead last in runs vs. league average runs, so at least they are the worst offense this year. So maybe they are indeed historically bad, but that's not what you'd get from the article.
"if that were your actual AAA lineup, you'd promote Reddick, DFA everybody else, and take a mulligan."
You'd DFA Cespedes when he has a 108 OPS+ as a Centerfielder?
Suzuki 89/47
Barton 102/82
Weeks 98/68
Pennington 86/55
Donaldson 12/3
Crisp 93/11
Reddick 103/141
Smith 109/98
Wow, that is a scintillating record of underperformance. I'm guessing most will hit better this year, but that Reddick will hit worse.
Not much to look forward to in the minors with Choice and Green seeming to stagnate. Norris looks like a good prospect. Miles Head is crushing the ball in A+, but no one seems to think he can play anywhere but 1b/DH and there are lots of doubts about his athleticism. Most of the pitching prospects are struggling as well, though the possible emergence of Straily helps offset that a bit.
Damn, it looks like somebody else is reading Eric's Game of the Day.
Sure it can. The A's are on pace to have the worst batting average of any team in 100 years. That's historically bad.
Is the point that you think the phrase "bad offense" can only refer to something like an era-adjusted runs per game? That isn't even pedantry, it's just nonsense.
5 games shouldn't define a season.
*Fails to make contact with chair*
Yeah, this idea that the Cubs don't tout the worst offensive lineup in baseball almost makes me ill for A's fans.
But I didn't see Cespedes; as several others noted, he hasn't played in three weeks. I was treated to the centerfield stylings of Collin Cowgill.
But no one's made that claim (not even the headline writer). The assertion is that the A's offense, in one pretty significant category, is on pace for historical ineptness. No one, not the writer or anyone in the thread, has made the nonsensical claim that this particular ineptness makes their offense the worst.
No, that's you doing it. The headline says the "A's offense is flirting with futility of historic proportions." And that's 100 percent true. Putting up the worst BA in more than 100 years would absolutely be a historic level of futility for an offense. If you want to read more into it than that, for the purposes of discrediting it, well, I think that's just silly. But the headline itself is accurate.
And I'll let PF defend his remarks, but I think you are also reading more into it than his intent.
The thing I don't understand is why they won't give Chris Carter a solid trial at first base. If he doesn't hit like Frank Howard upon arrival, he quickly loses playing time and gets sent back down to AAA because they don't want him sitting on the bench. He's already 25 and still hasn't received a fair shot. It's not like a two month 0-fer is going to be the reason the A's miss the playoffs. Is there something Deric Barton has done that makes them think he's going to develop the power the A's so dearly need? If think we'd have seen some signs of it by now.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main