Joe Bautista - won't you take me by the hand? **

I still can't believe that Jose Bautista hit 54 home runs in 2010.  Could it be that he was doing something differently?  His OPS sure says so:

2006 - .755
2007 - .753
2008 - .718
2009 - .757
2010 - .995

Let's check out his first 20 plate appearances in 2009 and 2010:

2010                                                        2009

1) 3 - pop out                                           1) 2 - line out
2) 6 - line out                                            2) 3 - 1b
3) 4 - fly out                                              3) 9 - 1b (infield)
4) 4 - walk                                                4) 7 - swinging
5) 4 - called out                                         5) 3 - fouled out
6) 5 - walk                                                6) 8 - swinging
7) 4 - swinging strike                                 7) 4 - fly out
8) 4 - walk                                                8) 2 - sacrifice
9) 2 - pop out                                           9) 4 - walk
10) 7 - pop out                                         10) 4 - swinging
11) 4 - GIDP                                            11) 1 - 1b
12) 2 - flies out                                          12) 3 - foul out
13) 4 - 2b                                                 13) 4 - 1b
14) 4 - swinging strike                               14) 1 - infield choice
15) 6 - walk                                              15) 4 - swinging
16) 3 - 1b                                                 16) 1 - ground out
17) 1 - pop out                                          17) 3 - looking
18) 1 - 2b                                                  18) 1 - 2b
19) 3 - line out                                            19) 3 - 1b
20) 4 - sac fly                                             20) 6 - 2b 

75 pitches                                                  73 pitches

Huh.  Not much of a difference in total pitches.  Maybe he didn't do anything different.  But not so fast -- he hit 73 in 2009 thanks to 3 long at bats (#3, 4 and 6) offsetting 4 times when we drove the first pitch into play (#11, 14, 16 and 18).  By contrast, in 2010 he was more consistent, with only 2 1-pitch at bats and only 1 at bat of 7 pitches or longer.

What do I make of this?  Well, first and foremost, I make that 20 at bats isn't a credible sample.  But given that this is what I have in front of me, I'll make the following posit.

In 2009, Bautista shows a ton of ability to make contact.  He goes 3-4 when he chases after the first pitch and #18 went deep.  Further, he fought hard in those early at bats, earning 27 pitches over 4 plate appearances.  In 2009 he had all of the tools to be a dynamic hitter except one -- patience.

In 2010, he saw pitch #4 in 13 out of his first 20 appearances (compared to just 9 in 2009).  He slowed it down and waited for his pitch.  And did it pay off...

Bautista also benefitted from not having a reputation as a power hitter.  I'm guessing that 2010 isn't easily repeatable, and I wouldn't want to put down money on another 50 home run year.  But I'd be surprised if he doesn't manage one home per 18 plate appearances -- maybe even one per 15 (that's 35-45 home runs if he stays healthy).

I guess you can call me a believer.

cheers,
jg

** -- Yeah, his name is Jose.  But it didn't scan, you see...

Give 'em Ell 'sbury!

In case you're curious, I count pitches on both sides of the plate.

The signing of Crawford made Ellsbury one of the tradable guys in the majors:

He could start on most teams

He's cheap

The Sox don't really need him

Sure, both Cameron and Drew are injury prone. But Kalish is close and both Nava and Reddick can fill in nicely. And don't you think that the Sox could have gotten Grienke for Ellsbury, Doubront + someone?

But I came to praise Ells, not to, um, bury him.

Most Boston press has forecast the top of the order to be Ellsbury, Pedoroia, Crawford. That seems wrong to me. According to Keith Hernandez' excellent book, the lead-off position will come to the plate 50 more times than the number 2 position, in a given season. The leadoff will come to the plate 100 more times than the number 3 position.

So your lead-off hitter really ought to earn those extra appearances. Does Ellsbury deserve 100 more than Crawford? Not a chance. You'd essentially be rewarding Ellsbury for being just as fast, but having less power. Frankly, I'd rather see Crawford lead-off and Ellsbury drop down to 9th.

Right, right. Not to bury him.

So if Ellsbury hasn't earned the lead-off spot in the past, why should I praise him? Here's why. From 2008 into 2009, he became more patient at the plate. Far more often, he ran the count full. Far more often, he took the first pitch for a strike. It didn't show up in his OBP, which remained 55 points above his batting average. But it showed up in his pitch count. If he becomes more choosy he will see the benefits for years to come.

I'm looking forward to seeing Ellsbury's next full season. I don't think that we've seen his best yet.

Incidentally, if the differential between batting average and on base is any judge of utility as a lead-off hitter, Crawford ain't so hot. He only gets 30 points. So who should lead off? How about anybody:

Ortiz: 100-120
Drew: 100-120
Gonzales: 80-130
Youk: 80-120
Pedroia: ~80
Cameron: 70-90
Scutaro: 60-90
Varitek: 60-80

Truth be told, you probably care more about OBP than differential, but I think that most of these guys still look better than Ellsbury...

Cheers,
JG