<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Galloway defends the Ranger offense 

Galloway's column today takes to task the "number crunchers" in the Rangers front office, who feel the Ranger offense last year was a disappointment.

Galloway disagrees, but as best I can tell, Galloway is wrong, and the argument he is refuting is wrong.

Galloway's position is, quite simply, the Rangers were fourth in the league in runs scored, so the offense was fine. However, that ignores the fact that the Rangers are playing in the run-inflating environs of TBIA, which boosts the raw run totals. The offense on the road was miserable, and when you factor in the inflation value of TBIA, the Ranger offense was mediocre last year.

However, the argument he claims the other side is making -- that the Rangers were 10th in batting average last year -- is bogus as well. The team batting average isn't terribly relevant, and doesn't explain why the Rangers' offense was sub-par last year. It was the team's 11th place finish in OBP that was particularly damning, combined with the fact that any stat that takes into account park effects put the 2004 Ranger offense in the bottom half of the league.

I like Galloway, but he's dead wrong here. The offense wasn't good last year, and it isn't some butt-covering or a front office plot that leads to that conclusion, as he suggests...it is simple reality.

Galloway seems to be using the offense argument into a segue about front office plots against Rudy Jaramillo, which may or may not be valid...personally, I think the Jaramillo Cult has overstated his influence, and would prefer to see our young hitters trying to draw some walks rather than hacking at everything they see at the plate.

Regardless, the pitching was better than the offense last year. And Galloway is falling prey to one of the oldest traps in baseball...ignoring park effects when determining how well the offense or pitching staff performed.


0 comments
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?