Bleeding Green wrote:I know it's a real tactic. I just find it hard to believe that he found a new level of performance at age 32. That just doesn't happen very often; you hear about people having great years and it being attributed to a swing change or a new batting stance or something, when in actuality it was just a fluke year.
Hope I'm wrong.
But how flukey was his 2007, actually?
Take his 2003 for example. Particularly the 1st half.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bs ... &year=2003
.275/.351/.586 28 HR 76 RBI in 399 PA and...a
.255 BABIP
Take the 1st half of his 2004, too.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bs ... &year=2004
.305/.384/.571 20 HR 55 RBI in 378 PA and a normal .296 BABIP
Forget 2005. .244 BABIP in the 1st half, .255 BABIP in the 2nd.
Now take the 1st half of his 2006.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bs ... &year=2006
.307/.359/.516 11 HR 46 RBI in 345 PA and a normal .310 BABIP
And now we come to the 1st half of his 2007.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bs ... &year=2007
.300/.351/.518 14 HR 63 RBI in 336 PA and a normal .294 BABIP
His 2nd half was the only flukey thing about last year. Traditionally he's a bad 2nd half hitter, for whatever reason. Neutralize his 2nd half high BABIP and you might get his typical slump, but maybe not. He avoided that slump somehow, and it's not just luck. I think it's because of his adjustments. You often hear about flukes misattributed to adjustments...sure. But sometimes it's actually because of an adjustment. The game is still played by humans, not computers.