Congratulations to the St. Louis Cardinals, 2011 World Series Champions

Inage from http://www.grandslamsports360.com/

That Was Awesome

You kind of had a feeling, didn't you?

The Rangers were one strike away from winning the World Series. Up by two runs, bottom of the 9th, Neftali Feliz on the mound. Yet - the season didn't quite feel ready to end. After a regular season with the most exciting final day of the wild card era? After three of four division series went all five games? After an LCS where both series went six, with the winning teams doing so in pretty unconventional, bullpen-centric ways? Nah, this season would live on  another night.

So when David Freese ripped a two run triple over the head of Nelson Cruz, was anyone really surprised? Excited, sure. But that's the way this year has gone.

So we go extra innings for the first time in World Series since 2005. (World Series' the last few years have been duds, I have to say). After losing the chance to win, many teams might have been deflated. The Rangers? A Josh Hamilton two run homer in the top of the 10th. That had to seal the game right? I mean, a team hadn't scored two runs in the top of the 10th inning in a World Series and still managed to lose since Game 6 of the 1986 World Series.

.

...

Yeah.

I've heard some talk today that there's no way the Rangers come back and win after such a crushing blow last night. To that, the only thing I can say is... REALLY? You've been watching baseball the last three weeks and you think that Rangers team is going to roll over and die? They already put up a two run 10th after leading by two with one strike to go. Sure, Chris Carpenter might be dominant tonight, and maybe the narrative will be that it's because the Rangers were "demoralized," but I'll be pretty skeptical of that. 

So, here we go. Game 7. I love baseball.

Mike Napoli, Hall of Famer?

One of my favorite articles written in the past few years comes, not surprisingly, from Joe Posnanski. In The Hall of Could Have Been, Joe discusses several players who might be described as "alternate universe" Hall of Famers - guys who might be in the Hall today if their careers had taken slightly different turns. He leaves out discussion of guys whose career was cut short by injury or interrupted by war, and focuses on those players who just didn't catch their breaks.

Some were obvious - Bert Blyleven's case, for example, and he fortunately did finally gain induction this year. Fred Lynn's statistical dropoff after leaving Boston has also been much-discussed. Others, less so. The Matt Stairs reference really piqued my interest at the time. His career numbers were so far short of a Hall of Famer, I'd never thought of him that way. I discussed this in an earlier post, and it's worth pointing out that Stairs' career home run rate was higher than that of Jim Rice.

In the last few months, while he was dominating the American League, I thought about Mike Napoli. I mentioned that in my World Series preview. With his performance the last two nights, Napoli stands a great chance of winning the World Series MVP Award if the Rangers hold on to win. In light of these occurrences, I'd like to make a bold pronouncement.

If he hadn't spent his 20's playing for a manager that didn't value his offense, Mike Napoli would be headed for the Hall of Fame.

Who are the best hitting catchers of all time? Yogi Berra, Johnny Bench and Mike Piazza. (Josh Gibson, too, but we don't have enough statistical information on him).  Through age 29, Berra homered once every 21.9 at bats, Bench every 19.3, Piazza every 15.6, playing in the greatest offensive era of all time. Mike Napoli? At 15.7, he is the slightest tick behind Piazza, a player with similar defensive difficulties to Napoli who nevertheless got a chance to play because, well, you'd either have to be an idiot or Mike Scioscia to not want a guy who could be a reasonable facsimile of a catcher and hit a home run once every 15.6 at bats. Sure, Piazza hit for a much higher average than Napoli, and Berra and Bench were vastly superior defensive players. But it's not like those three are borderline Hall of Fame guys. Bench was elected, on 96.4% of ballots cast, in his first year of eligibility. Berra had to wait until year two, because voters in the 1960's and 70's did things like that - Joe Dimaggio didn't even get in on his first year. Piazza might have to deal with ridiculous steroid allegations, but on the numbers alone, he'd be in the Hall upon eligibility in 2013.

Let's look at Napoli's career numbers:

Year	Age	Tm	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS
2006	24	LAA	325	268	47	61	13	0	16	42	51	90	.228	.360	.455	.815
2007	25	LAA	263	219	40	54	11	1	10	34	33	63	.247	.351	.443	.794
2008	26	LAA	274	227	39	62	9	1	20	49	35	70	.273	.374	.586	.960
2009	27	LAA	432	382	60	104	22	1	20	56	40	103	.272	.350	.492	.842
2010	28	LAA	510	453	60	108	24	1	26	68	42	137	.238	.316	.468	.784
2011	29	TEX	432	369	72	118	25	0	30	75	58	85	.320	.414	.631	1.046
		Total	2236	1918	318	507	104	4	122	324	259	548	.264	.359	.514	.873

What do you notice? First off, the guy homers a LOT. He also strikes out a lot, leading to some batting averages that some people wouldn't be thrilled with, but overall that's pretty amazing production from the catching position.

For comparison's sake, let's take a look at the guy Mike Scioscia often preferred to play, Jeff Mathis.

Year	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS
2005	3	3	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	.333	.333	.333	.667
2006	63	55	9	8	2	0	2	6	7	14	.145	.238	.291	.529
2007	195	171	24	36	12	0	4	23	15	49	.211	.276	.351	.627
2008	328	283	35	55	8	0	9	42	30	90	.194	.275	.318	.593
2009	272	237	26	50	8	0	5	28	22	73	.211	.288	.308	.596
2010	218	205	19	40	6	1	3	18	6	59	.195	.219	.278	.497
2011	281	247	18	43	12	0	3	22	15	75	.174	.225	.259	.484
Total	1360	1201	132	233	48	1	26	139	95	361	.194	.257	.301	.557

Mathis gets bagged on a lot. I'm sure he's a nice guy and a fine defensive catcher, but the guy is an automatic out. It's hard to picture any manager other than Mike Scioscia giving a hitter like this half the playing time over a five year period. I'm not sure how bad Napoli would have to be defensively and how good Mathis would have to be to make up for the difference in their offensive production. I'm pretty sure it would involve Mathis framing every single pitch so that Angel pitchers never threw a ball, and Napoli using the Bob Uecker knuckleball approach on every single pitch, simply waiting until it stopped rolling to pick it up to toss it back to the pitcher. Even then, it would be close. If Napoli has a lower batting average than you'd like, how can you take a guy who has a lower career OBP than Napoli's batting average? The difference has become more pronounced in the last two years, with Mathis compiling an OPS+ of exactly 37 in both seasons. I'm not the biggest plan of OPS+, but THIRTY-SEVEN? Over 499 plate appearances? In his last 499 plate appearances, Mike Napoli has 33 home runs! His home run total is almost as high as Mathis's OPS+! These numbers are mind boggling.

So, let's move to an alternate universe. One in which Mike Napoli is not within the clutches of Mike Scioscia, and his manager instead notices that he's managing the best power hitting catcher in the world. Said manager gives Napoli 550 plate appearances per year. Let's recalculate his stats, based on that, shall we? I've left his rookie 2006 season intact, and pro-rated every season since.

Note: Because of rounding, some of the calculated seasonal rate stats will vary slightly from what they were in reality. 

Year	Age	Tm	Lg	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS
2006	24	LAA	AL	325	268	47	61	13	0	16	42	51	90	.228	.360	.455	.815
2007	25	LAA	AL	550	458	84	113	23	2	21	71	69	132	.247	.356	.443	.799
2008	26	LAA	AL	550	456	78	124	18	2	40	98	70	141	.272	.379	.583	.963
2009	27	LAA	AL	550	486	76	132	28	1	25	71	50	131	.272	.350	.488	.838
2010	28	LAA	AL	550	489	65	116	26	1	28	73	45	148	.237	.317	.466	.783
2011	29	TEX	AL	550	470	92	150	32	0	38	95	74	108	.319	.416	.630	1.046
				3075	2627	442	696	140	6	168	450	359	750	.265	.363	.515	.878

Hmmm. We now have a player who has seasons of 40 and 38 homers, twice has 90+ RBI, and has 50 extra base hits for four consecutive years. Let's compare that to some other Hall of Fame catchers through their age 29 seasons.

Year	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS
Fake Napoli	3075	2627	442	696	140	6	168	450	359	750	.265	.363	.515	.878
Johnny Bench	6304	5554	824	1491	294	21	287	1038	655	941	.268	.343	.484	.827
Mike Piazza	3482	3119	511	1038	148	4	200	644	330	493	.333	.396	.575	.972
Carlton Fisk	2825	2491	411	710	120	23	114	376	272	405	.285	.360	.489	.849
Gary Carter	5025	4422	608	1190	224	22	188	688	485	597	.269	.342	.457	.799
Yogi Berra	4333	3964	646	1175	177	37	181	790	332	179	.296	.354	.497	.851

Unsurprisingly, Napoli is second in slugging percentage. Perhaps more suprisingly, he's also second in on-base percentage, assisted by a comparatively high walk rate. It should be noted that Bench, Piazza, Carter and Berra have a sizable lead in counting stats, even over alternate universe Napoli, simply because they got earlier starts. All except Piazza were big prospects (especially Bench), and Piazza got immediate playing time once he made it to the big leagues.

So, I decided to take the our alternate universe Mike Napoli and calculate some of his similarity scores based on the baseball-reference.com version. Here's what I came up with for players through age 29. 

Note: These may be incomplete, since I was running through the players based on the similarity scores of other guys. There were about 100 players that I calculated similarity scores for, and probably 100 more that I looked through. Least similar player that I ran a score for? Bobby Doerr.

1. Javy Lopez (919)

2. Gabby Hartnett* (907)

3. Charles Johnson (905)

4. Carlton Fisk* (904)

5. Matt Nokes (886)

6. Gus Traindos (885)

7. Toddy Hundley (8801)

8. Del Crandall (881)

9. Gene Tenace (876)

10. Ramon Hernandez (876)

Ok - so of the top 10 comparable players, only two are Hall of Famers. Interesting to note, though, that these comparability scores are all so far off. Of this group, only Lopez had a home run rate better than every 20 at bats. Napoli, of course, is under 16. Also, I don't care for how B-R uses batting average, rather than OBP, in their calculation. Let's swap that out.

1. Gabby Hartnett* (929)

2. Carlton Fisk* (921)

3. Javier Lopez (919)

4. Victor Martinez (890)

5. Charles Johnson (887)

6. Gene Tenace (885)

7. Earl Battey (867)

8. Todd Hundley (862)

9. Gus Triandos (859)

10. Mike Piazza^ (855)

*Dave Nilsson rated an 898 on the first list, and a 910 on the second, if you put his position as a catcher. He only played about 1/2 his time up to his age 29 season as a catcher, and very little in the last few years. I decided to use a weighted position scale, which dropped him out of the top 10, but it's likely that some would include him.

So we lose Nokes, Crandall, and Hernandez and replace them with Martinez, Battey and Piazza. Hartnett and Fisk move up to 1-2. The underrated Tenace moves up to 6th. This is a pretty impressive group of comparables. Among these players, only Piazza has more home runs. Only Piazza and Hartnett have a higher SLG. 

To conclude, while Alternate Universe Mike Napoli isn't quite a slam dunk "I'm only 29 and I'm surely headed to the Hall of Fame" case that Johnny Bench was, his career lines up nicely with some guys who did make it. Real-life Mike Napoli has no such luck. 

Still, out of Mike Scioscia's doghouse, Napoli has gotten a real opportunity to shine. Again, the power hasn't been a surprise - he's always hit for power. Arguably more rewarding has been the plaudits Napoli has earned on defense. Most metrics seem to agree with the Ranger coaching staff that Napoli has been improved behind the plate. And for Scioscia, shouldn't that be more damning than anything else? I mean, it's one thing to overemphasize defense over offense - it's quite another to be considered a master instructor, and than have a former player improve mightily from the moment he escapes. If Scioscia's tyranny kept Napoli out of the Hall of Fame, it's fair to imagine that Napoli's emergence might do the same to Scioscia - once considered one of the best managers in the business, his reputation has taken a hit this year.

In the end, while it will always be interesting to consider the career arc of Alternate Universe Mike Napoli, what's really thrilling is seeing the real life version finally make the impact we knew he was capable of. Now we can all live Napoli Ever After.

Tables were made using TABLEIZER!

Top Ten Reasons to Watch the World Series

I've heard a few people complaining about the World Series this year, talking about how the "ratings" are going to be too low, how they were rooting for other teams to make it, and on and on. While this wasn't the matchup I was expecting, there are a ton of storylines that any good baseball fan should be excited about. Here are 10 I find appealing.

1. Old vs. New

Up until the Giants and Dodgers moved in 1958, the St. Louis Cardinals were the "western" team in Major League Baseball. They still have a huge fan base throughout the west. This is their 18th National League Pennant, and they are looking for their 11th World Series title - both are leaders among National League Franchises. They're the only team who has appeared in as many as three of the past 10 World Series. Their manager, Tony LaRussa, has won 2,728 games, third most all time. Their best player, Albert Pujols, is the greatest player in the game today, a sure bet Hall of Famer, and, by the time he is finished, may be one of the top 10 players of all time.

The Texas Rangers have never won a World Series. Before last year, they'd never even won a playoff series. They've spent their existence in the shadow of the Dallas Cowboys. "It's a football town" people would say, and the Rangers never really did anything to prove otherwise. In the last couple of years, though, things have changed. Some shrewd moves by GM Jon Daniels and a new organizational philosophy led by team president Nolan Ryan, manager Ron Washington, and, with far less fanfare, pitching coach Mike Maddux has had the Rangers winning, and perhaps more importantly, the fans responding. The Ballpark in Arlington has been louder the last two years than any other stadium in baseball. The New Yankee Stadium has the louder fans pushed back too far - the place doesn't rumble like the old yard. Fenway Park has become too expensive, and the rabid fans of previous decades have been replaced by business customers and yuppies more interested in singing "Sweet Caroline*." Rangers' fans have really picked up the slack. Is it bandwagon jumping, or is this the real deal? It's hard to tell. Football will always be king in Texas, but that doesn't mean baseball can't be huge as well. The Dallas-Arlington-Fort Worth metroplex is the fourth largest in the United States. The three who are larger (NY, LA, Chicago) each have two baseball teams who BOTH get tons of support. Doesn't it seem likely that the Rangers can join them? They've been well-run and have a huge population (a.k.a. revenue) base to work off of. They just signed a new TV contract last fall worth $80M a year. The word "dynasty" was thrown out in a couple spots, which is dumb, because they haven't won a World Series yet, but the Rangers have everything in place to be able to be an annual contender the way the Red Sox and Yankees are. They combine effective traditional scouting and development with smart statistical analysis. They are baseball's new school.

*Ok, I actually like Sweet Caroline. It's a good little ditty. But hearing it over and over in the midst of the Red Sox collapse made it, and the Sox fanbase, something of a laughingstock. The idea that it "rubbed off on the team" was preposterous - the Red Sox didn't lose their lead because they were complacent, they lost because their pitching stunk. The complacency of the fans singing whimsically while their baseball team collapsed around them is a pretty strong narrative of the change in mindset over at Fenway in the last 10 years. Anyway, that's the last I have to say about the Red Sox today. This is about the Cardinals and Rangers. I swear.

2. Star Power.

Albert Pujols. Josh Hamilton. Your 2011 World Series on Fox, coming up next.

That sounds... about right. I mean, doesn't it? Two of the best, most exciting and most popular players in the game, as the centerpiece of their pennant winning teams. Hamilton's season was off quite a bit from his 2010 MVP campaign, but his .536 slugging was still good for 8th in the American League. And his story is well-established.

Albert Pujols had the worst season of his career, when he hit .299/.366/.541. That should pretty much speak for itself. . During the first two round of the playoffs, he's hit .419/.490/.721. His first double of the World Series will set the record for most in a single postseason.

Baseball-reference.com gives him a career WAR of 89,1, good enough for 41st all time. At 31 years old, that puts him immediately below Randy Johnson, Warren Spahn and Cal Ripken. He's 18.3 away from the top 20. Whatever your feeling are on the WAR statistic, it seems to get the overarching career narrative down. Pujols is one of the greatest players of all time, and he's playing in the World Series. Isn't that enough of a reason to watch?

3. Chris Carpenter vs. C.J. Wilson

Twice.

Neither pitching staff did especially much in the league championship series. Carpenter got the win with 5 mediocre innings against the Brewers. C.J. Wilson followed up his bad start in the LDS with a start that didn't get him out of the 5th inning and another where he gave up 6 runs in 6 innings. So far in the playoffs, he has an 8.04 ERA with 6 homers allowed in 15.2 innings.

That's only part of the story. Carpenter pitched a gem in game 5 of the NLDS, a 3 hit, complete game shutout against Roy Halladay. He NEEDED to be that good, too - Halladay gave up only one run. Carpenter was that much better that day, and it's the reason his team is still playing. He had two additional complete game shutouts in September. He's won one Cy Young Award, and also has a second place and third place finish on his resume. Since joining the Cardinals in 2004, he has 95 wins and a 3.04 ERA (good for a 134 ERA+). He is one of the few true, established aces in the game.

C.J. Wilson was a relief pitcher through 2009. Benefitting more than anyone from the tutelage of Nolan Ryan and Mike Maddux, he's complied 427 innings over the past two years. After last year, I was skeptical of his, and the Rangers success. In this year's AL West preview, I wrote that "If he can get that walk rate down from 4.1 per 9 to the mid 3's, then he may be able to keep up his success. If that walk rate stays up though, his ERA will follow." Wilson did more than that - he got his walk rate to a flat 3.0 per nine, and his strikeout rate jumped from 7.5 to 8.3 - the jump in K/BB from 1.83 to 2.78 resulted in a drop in ERA from 3.35 to 2.94. The success of Wilson and the success of the Rangers seem to very much be the same story. Both proved me wrong - the Rangers proved to be a legitimate contender, and Wilson proved to be a legitimate ace.

4. Breakout performers in the 2011 playoffs who aren’t actually that young. 

David Freese. Nelson Cruz. Alexi Ogando. Mike Napoli. Marc Rzepczynski*. Jason Motte. 

Only Freese is younger than 28, and he just had one of the best LCS performances in history. Arbitration eligible, he's been a good player since being called up in 2009, but has probably won himself a nice raise and enough goodwill to not have to compete for the starting 3B job next year. Cruz might not totally belong on this list, because he's made an All-Star team, but his ridiculous ALCS performance demands it. Ogando was named ace of the All-Ugly team. Rzepczynski had a 1.93 ERA and a memorable Game 6 performance where Tony LaRussa actually let a reliever pitch to more than 3 batters. He also has a name that rather lends itself to memorability. Jason Motte has pitched 8 scoreless innings in the playoffs, saving four games. The playoffs lend themselves particularly well to previously little known relievers becoming household names - Brian Wilson appearing in Taco Bell commercials goes to show that power.

For me though, the most satisfying is Mike Napoli. His dominant offensive statistics and lack of playing time led people to write things that would make you think Mike Scioscia was some sort of evil dictator or complete fool. Ok, maybe he is those things, because HE DIDN'T PLAY MIKE NAPOLI. Evoke the name of Matt Stairs, and some smart people, like Bill James and Joe Posnanski, will tell you that if he'd gotten the chance to play in his 20's he might have been a Hall of Famer. People will be saying the same thing about Napoli, only there is more evidence to back it up. He's been a dominant offensive player for six years, and he now gets the chance to show everyone.

*Note: On my original draft of this, I correctly spelled Rzepczynski, but misspelled "Marc," ending it with a k. Sounds about right.

5. Bullpens – overused or just awesome?

In the NLCS, St. Louis starting pitchers had only 24.1 innings in six games, leaving 28.2 for the bullpen. Tony LaRussa made 28 pitching changes, 4.66 per game. Yet they managed to win 3 games and compile a 1.88 ERA. Lance Lynn, not even on the previous rounds roster, pitched in 5 games. He gave up zero runs. Rzepczynski also pitched in 5 games. In game 6, he pitched 2.1 innings; in the other four games, he pitched a total of 2.1 innings. 

In the ALCS, Texas starting pitcher made it 28.2 innings in their six games, leaving but a meager 27.1 for the bullpen. Ron Washington made 25 pitching changes, 4.12 per game. Yet their bullpen won all four games, with a 1.32 ERA. Mike Adams pitched in 5 games, Feliz and Ogando in four apiece. Ogando, arguably the teams second best starter all year, won two of their games and gave up only 1 run in 7.2 innings, striking out 10. What appeared to be a tired arm down the stretch appears to be revitalized pitching in shorter stretches. 

Can they keep it up? This sort of usage is extreme, and it's easy to say "if these teams want to win, they're going to get more use out of their starters. But the truth is that both teams, particularly the Rangers, have a TON of talent in their bullpens. I wouldn't ADVISE a strategy that involves taking out your starter in the 5th inning with the bases loaded and 6 runs already allowed, but both these teams have the offensive firepower and bullpen talent to overcome it.

6. Implications for Free Agents

Ok, this isn't something I'm personally interested in, because I hate to see good players leave good teams. Baseball is definitely better off if Albert Pujols stays on the Cardinals, and probably better off if C.J. Wilson does the same. Equally importantly, both players are probably better off if they stay in the same place, as the enormous goodwill for Michael Young shows. There's something to be said for a player being identifiable with a team. If Jorge Posada wasn't a Yankee in 1996, he wouldn't have been one in 2011. That said, the story is there, and will be talked about. 

The truth is, there's nothing Albert Pujols could do in this series to change his value, other than perhaps suffer some horrific injury. If he went 16 for 18 with 12 home runs, he probably wouldn't earn one cent more. If he goes 0 for 18 and strikes out 14 times, he probably won't get one cent less. His record of excellence is established, and anyone who thinks they're going to measure him based on four to seven games is a fool. Be ready, though, for a lot of "will this be Albert's final this, this and this as a member of the Cardinals."

Measuring CJ Wilson on the (possible) two games he'll pitch in this series is probably just as silly, but he certainly has a chance to set perception of him as an elite performer. He will be the best free agent pitcher available - I'm ignoring CC Sabathia who will almost definitely a) listen to some posturing about how the Yankees would not be happy to renegotiate with Sabathia if he opts out, b) exercise his opt-out clause, then  c) resign with the Yankees, for six or seven years, in relatively short order. There's little that shocks me anymore in baseball, but a chain of events that isn't as I described would at least surprise me. Anyhow, that leaves Wilson as the best starting pitcher available as a free agent. Wilson is on the cusp of ace-ville. He has 9.4 WAR over the past two years, going 31-15 with a 3.14 ERA in 67 starts, striking out 376 and walking 176 in a pretty tough place to pitch. In the playoffs, though? He's 1-4, with a 5.40 ERA. He's completed six innings in just 3 of his seven starts, never completing seven. Fair or not, a mediocre or poor World Series will solidify him in the minds of many as a good pitcher, but something less than a franchise player. A big Series, and he could be looking at $100M plus. 

There are other free agents - Edwin Jackson probably has a nice deal coming - but Pujols and Wilson are going to get the bulk of the attention.

7. The impact of potential over-management.

 LaRussa, as I wrote here, took out Lance Lynn for no reason in Game 2. Washington, I wrote here, had Josh Hamilton bunt in a game he was losing 6-0. (It came out the next day that Washington did not put on the bunt sign, but he thought it was a good play. I'm sure that's just protecting Hamilton, but it would've been ok for him to say something like "I love that he was willing to give him up for the team, but we need Josh to be swinging there").

I discussed above the number of pitching changes both managers made. Part of that was necessitated by poor starting pitcher performance. Part was just overdoing it on the matchups. LaRussa loves the sacrifice bunt, with 57 non-pitcher bunts. Leading the way was Daniel Descalso, who sacrificed 10 times - including twice when he was put in as a pinch hitter. Neither manager employs the intentional walk frequently, which is nice. Washington used the second fewest in the majors, with 21. His intentional walk of Miguel Cabrera very nearly burned him - it took a fantastic Nelson Cruz throw to get him off the hook.

So, I don't think we'll be in a situation where it's a repeat of 2001's Game 4, when Bob Brenly THRICE had Craig Counsell sacrifice Tony Womack, a strategy that produced a run in zero of those three chances, and the Diamondbacks lost by one run. That is still my go-to bad managing moment. Keep an eye on the pitching changes, though. Both managers got good results on their pitching changes in the LCS, but good results aren't always the product of good decisions. Both of these teams have offenses good enough to make an ill-timed pitching change look really, really bad.

8. The re-emergence of batting average. 

Batting average has taken a lot of heat in recent years, and with good reason - it doesn't correspond to run scoring as well as on-base percentage or slugging percentage, and it is subject to huge variation based on luck in balls in play. However, that doesn't mean batting average is useless. Guys like Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Ichiro Suzuki and Derek Jeter hit for high batting averages for years, despite not hitting for much power. Why? Because hitting for average is a skill. It's true that there is variation based on luck, and it's true that some players fluctuate more than others. That doesn't completely devalue the statistic totally, it just means you need to be cognizant of possible external factors.

There's been a line of thinking, one that I'm trying to do some research on whenever I get the chance, that teams who are good at hitting for average succeed in the playoffs. Why? Because they are better at hitting good pitches. Teams with a low batting average that rely on walks and the home run have trouble in the playoffs, because the teams they are playing against are likely there because their pitcher do a good job avoiding walks and home runs. This was pointed to a lot when The Oakland A's lost in the first round four straight years in the early 00's, but that was partially because traditionalists were trying to find any reason the de-legitimatize the statistical approach of Billy Beane and, somewhat ironically, tried to use statistics to do it. "My statistic is better than your statistic" became the baseball version of "my dad could beat up your dad." In this case though, maybe there was something it. After all, it sounded reasonable.

So far in 2011, the team with the better regular season batting average has won all six series. That includes Detroit, who beat the higher scoring New York Yankees, and Milwaukee, who beat the higher scoring Arizona Diamondbacks. The story was especially prevalent in that Tigers-Yankees series, where the middle third of the New York order, Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez, and Nick Swisher, all notably struggled. All three hit below .280 and derive much of their value from power and patience. This is particularly true of Teixeira, who is now .207/.315/.322 in the playoffs in 143 plate appearances .

This is a small sample that doesn't "prove" anything, but if it had been the Moneyball A's rather than the Moneybag Yankees who did this, the narrative would be less that the players choked, and more that the organizational approach failed.

9. We’re on schedule for a really, really, really good one.

I've been watching baseball since 1988. The two best World Series of my baseball watching life were 1991 and 2001. There really isn't too much debate about it. Both are generally talked about as being among the best of all time. Following that pattern, 2011 should be classic.

10. The Yankees aren’t here. 

Which is awesome. The World Series is always more enjoyable to me when the Yankees are either not there, or lose. Either way. 

There's a larger point though. I've read a couple articles about how low the TV ratings are probably going to be for these two teams. So what? Do you choose your favorite TV show based on how many people watch? Are the best movies the ones that make the most money? Of course not. Baseball, as I've pointed out several times, shoots itself in the foot by constantly promoting the same teams. In the last seven years, the Yankees have been in one World Series, and the Red Sox have been in one World Series. The Cardinals and Rangers are both in their second in that span. 

So if you're choosing not to watch because of the way MLB chooses to promote themselves (or, more accurately, how ESPN and Fox choose to promote them - the MLB Network actually does a good job at least trying to promote the entire league), you deserve to miss out.


So that's it. 10 reasons to watch. If that's not enough for you, I'm sorry.

My prediction? Rangers in 7.

After all, they had the better batting average this year.