What’s an appropriate sample size at the outset of a baseball season to gauge a player’s effectiveness?
Some fans are ready to make up their minds after the last out on Opening Day. I recall a year ago a fan insisting that the Nationals’ free agent signing of Matt Capps was a huge mistake and that they should pay him now immediately and cut their losses.
That guy must be a regular riot to deal with in his fantasy league.
When Ian Desmond began the year with an 0-for-13 streak, many fans seemed ready to pull him out of the leadoff spot in favor of almost anybody else. Even Jim Riggleman publicly said that Danny Espinosa would likely get a shot at it during the Marlins’ series.
What a kidder, that Riggleman.
Whether the shift to Espinosa was a genuine possibility, or just a psychological move to motivate Desmond, it seemed to pay off, with the shortstop going 6-for-11 at Sun Life Stadium. Yes, he’s still an aggressive swinger and rarely walks — only 28 times last year in 154 games — but putting the ball in play counts for something, and in the absence of a prototypical leadoff man, they have to start someone there.
One of my MASN colleagues, Dave Johnson, believes that a young position player deserves the better part of a month before getting yanked out of the lineup, and a starting pitcher four to five starts. There’s a lot of agreement inside the game on those figures, much to the chagrin of some impatient fans.
Baseball is full of stories about young players who couldn’t buy a hit or get anybody out when they first got a regular shot. Most fans are aware that the great Willie Mays was 1-for-27 when he was called up from Minneapolis by the Giants in 1951. He actually went to manager Leo Durocher and asked to be sent back. Durocher kept him in the lineup and shortly thereafter, the hits just kept on comin’.
More recently, the Orioles promoted outfielder Nick Markakis in 2006, and handed him the right field gig. A month later he was hitting .175 and seemed destined to be optioned. He stayed in the lineup and finished close to .300.
It’s not just rookies. Some veterans are notoriously slow starters. Adam LaRoche didn’t homer until the Diamondbacks’ 13th game in 2010. He’s well ahead of that pace already.
Conversely, getting off to a great start guarantees nothing either. The 1966 Indians won their first 10 games and 14 of their first 15 — and finished fifth overall, an even 81-81.
There’s a reason they play 162 games. It’s an expression I’ve used to excess over the last several decades, but it’s no less true. A slow start — fewer than 10 games — is rarely much of a trend. The better players will rise to the occasion over the 6-month season, the average ones will stay average over the long term, and the cup of coffee guys will come and go.
It’s the nature of the game.
Examiner columnist Phil Wood is a baseball historian and contributor to MASN’s Nats Xtra. Contact him at [email protected].
