Author Archive

Built on Bonds

All wheeling and dealing for Luc Longley and Bobby Hansen aside, former Bulls GM Jerry Krause never got much credit for bringing Chicago six NBA titles in the 1990s. With Michael Jordan on his roster, fans figured, how on earth could Krause and the Bulls not win?

San Franciscans might start asking such a question of Giants GM Brian Sabean.

He’s enjoyed winning seasons in eight of his nine years pulling strings for the Giants, but he hasn’t brought home a World Series crown, despite having the MJ of MLB on his roster all the while. Sabean’s Giants have been good and have gotten very close, even winning the National League in 2002. But Baseball isn’t horseshoes, and players as talented as Barry Bonds– as good as Mays, Mantle, and the rest of them– don’t come around but once every few decades.

These days, with their star on the decline, the Giants struggle to keep their record above .500. Watching this fizzle, while ex-Giants Manager Dusty Baker flails in Chicago, it’s fair to ask where these guys’ careers would be if Barry Bonds hadn’t ever decided to come home.

That was in 1993, ten years into his major league career, when Bonds returned to San Francisco from Pittsburgh and Baker became the team’s manager. Sabean arrived in town that year as well, taking the assistant GM position after seven years with the Yankees.

Thirteen years later, all three are viewed separately as men of great baseball accomplishment. Now we’ll see if two of them really deserve it.

Mound Serendipity

The Associated Press says P Matt Clement, he of a 6.68 ERA in 12 starts this season for Boston, is “scuffling through the worst of his eight major league
seasons.” Manager Terry Francona chalks it up to a bad shoulder; he’s put
the veteran on the 15-day disabled list, hoping the time away will help
Clement relocate his mojo.

Perhaps. But PROTRADE’s Moneyball Scoring system suggests Clement might be
better served hunting down a four-leaf clover or scoping pennies on a Beacon
Hill sidewalk. That’s because all luck, bad bounces, and mispositioned (or
range-challenged) fielders aside, the 31-year old has in reality pitched
himself within a few percentage points of his career-best season ERA.

According to our numbers, Clement’s “real” ERA is 3.62, more than three runs
better than the official number that besmirches his performance in Boston
sports pages. He is, in fact, PROTRADE’s reigning leader in bad luck among
major league pitchers this season. It’s a calculation we can manage because
we break down every baseball
play into its component parts, comparing what did happen to what usually
happens as a means of allotting appropriate credit or blame.

Most unique, it lays bare those non-errors that really should be. We’re
talking about those myriad cases when that lumbering right fielder cannot
get a glove on the ball and thus, doesn’t earn a demerit for failing to
achieve the routine.

So for pitchers, the difference manifests itself in little, unnoticed
fielding moments. Consider the third inning of a Red Sox-Rangers matchup at
Fenway Park on May 12, when 2B Mark Loretta doesn’t get to two separate
balls he should have caught, saddling Clement with two earned runs in the
team’s 6-0 loss. Or in an 8-6 loss to the Yankees on May 24, when Alex
Rodriguez and Robinson Cano led off the fifth inning with singles that
should have been outs, then New York OF Terrence Long drove in what would
prove the game-winning run with another routine grounder somehow out of the
reach of Loretta.

Clement has two weeks of R & R to find a way to reverse the after
effects of whatever mirror he broke or ladder he walked beneath. Maybe
easier — call Padres P Scott Cassidy, his serendipitous opposite. The
journeyman is strutting around San Diego with a 2.37 ERA from the team’s

Rumor has it, Cassidy pitches with a horseshoe in his glove.

PROTRADE’s Unlucky
  Player PT ERA Actual
1 Matt Clement (BOS) 3.62 6.68 -3.06
2 Francisco Cordero (TEX) 2.88 5.63 -2.75
3 Doug Waechter (TB) 4.33 6.62 -2.29
4 Mark Redman (KC) 3.97 6.06 -2.09
5 Odalis Perez (LAD) 4.86 6.90 -2.04
6 Brian Moehler (FLA) 4.66 6.68 -2.02
7 Keith Foulke (BOS) 3.84 5.63 -1.79
8 Jorge Julio (ARI) 3.35 5.06 -1.71
9 Jason Johnson (CLE) 4.06 5.70 -1.64
10 Taylor Buchholz (HOU) 4.53 6.06 -1.53
PROTRADE’s Lucky Ten
  Player PT ERA Actual
1 Scott Cassidy (SD) 5.23 2.37 2.86
2 Geoff Geary (PHI) 5.00 2.78 2.22
3 Sidney Ponson (STL) 5.54 3.54 2.00
4 Oscar Villarreal (ATL) 6.92 4.99 1.93
5 Luis Vizcaino (ARI) 4.39 2.59 1.80
6 Scot Shields (LAA) 2.95 1.30 1.65
7 Aaron Sele (LAD) 3.72 2.32 1.40
8 Ryan Franklin (PHI) 5.77 4.40 1.37
9 Mike Maroth (DET) 4.93 3.56 1.37
10 Woody Williams (SD) 4.62 3.27 1.35

The Joe Morgan Paradox

In Nov. 1962, the Houston Colt 45s weren’t in the business of selling jeans.

That’s why they signed Oakland City College star 2B Joe Morgan– all 5’5, 140 pounds of him. Houston didn’t plan on using Morgan to market Colt Stadium as a place to see the beautiful people. Rather, they wanted men in scoring position.

The team won just 64 games in their inaugural season the previous summer, averaging just 3.65 runs per-game while flexing a team on-base percentage of .308. Both marks were the Majors’ worst. Morgan, a rare infielder with speed and a big bat, looked like an antidote.

Morgan officially took over in the spring of 1965. He hit 14 homers and drew 97 walks in that rookie season, nearly as many (99) as the position had given the team during the past three seasons combined. Houston quickly forgot his predecessors at the position, like Ernie Fazio (.184/27 BB vs. 70 Ks in ’63) and Joey Amalfitano (.237/1 HR in ’62). In Morgan, the Houston Colt 45s first homegrown star had been born.

That Morgan’s subsequent career was so rife with measurable accomplishment — he ranked in the majors’ top ten in on-base percentage eleven times, OPS six times, and walks 18 times — rings a bit ironic these days. From his perch as an ESPN analyst, he’s become the game’s reigning neo-luddite, vehemently opposed to statistical analysis and its recent rise in stature.

"That moneyball theory is overrated," he once quipped on an chat. "Nobody has ever won with it. Players win games. Not theories."

Among other things, Morgan has famously opined that batting average is a "personal thing" and that pitchers are best judged by their wins and losses.

You might think that, as co-founder of a company wholly predicated on the opposite theory, I’d be a card-carrying member of the baseball blog posse calling for Morgan’s ouster

I’m not.

Of course, I disagree with him. And I can’t say he’s my favorite baseball analyst. But rather than discount Morgan’s anti-Moneyball salvos completely, I try to listen. Coming from a Hall-of-Famer who played 22 seasons and won two MVPs, he’s earned his right to his opinion. Morgan’s playing career doesn’t give carte blanche on what matters in baseball. No, it doesn’t.

But Morgan’s point-of-view is real and, unfortunately to some extent, prevailing in baseball. Mocking him won’t help us understand where he’s coming from, just as refusing to read “Moneyball” —  he famously won’t pick it up and still probably believes that Billy Beane wrote the book —  gives Morgan an incomplete picture of what we’re all about.

How very ironic, given that Morgan was moneyball before “Moneyball” existed.

If he were starting out today, he’d be the smallest player in the majors. And circa 2006, the most likely guy to give Morgan a chance, picking him on accomplishment ahead of that 6’4, 220 pound high-schooler, would be Billy Beane himself.

Five Questions with the Author of Moneyball

5 Questions w/Michael Lewis

It’s no secret to members of the PROTRADE nation that we’re fans of author
Michael Lewis. His book ‘Moneyball’ inspired PROTRADE and, I think, laid a
clear and convincing case for measuring human performance with something
measurable. Something to test against and refine.  After all, if you’re
about to drop $50 million on a pitcher, you might want a more objective way
to assess the potential investment than: "This guy may be the best body in
the draft." (Page 31)  Yesterday morning, when we were considering Tuesday’s
50-round first year professional player draft, we got to thinking: what does
Lewis think of the state of ‘Moneyball’ today?

So, we asked him a few questions.

Jeff Ma: When you look at the ‘As’ 2001 and 2002 amateur
drafts with the hindsight of a few seasons, does the success of 2001 players
like Bonderman, Crosby and Johnson alter your original assessment of the
"Moneyball" approach?  Why not?
Lewis: No, because I didn’t have an original assessment, and even if
you assume those three players wind up having good big league careers the
2001 draft, like just about all drafts, was a ridiculously risky way to
invest millions of dollars. The point of the draft chapters in "Moneyball"
was not "The Oakland A’s have found the secret to drafting future major
league players but "The Oakland A’s, seeing the general, and increasingly
expensive, inaccuracy in the evaluation of amateur players, have set out to
find a new and better way to do it."

They weren’t sure the 2002 draft was going to be a big success — though of
course they hoped it would. But, they had some then-novel theories about the
statistics of amateur players, and what they might say about future
professional success. The big difference between what they did, and what big
league teams have always done, is that they could prove themselves wrong,
and move on to refine their ideas. Which they are doing.

Jeff Ma: Since the publication of "Moneyball" several
teams, including the Mets, Padres, Cardinals and Diamondbacks have joined
the As, Red Sox and the Blue Jays on the ‘Moneyball’ train.  Is their
adoption making the MLB talent market more efficient?
Lewis: I assume so. On some of those rosters are productive players
who, five years ago, would have been cheaply snagged by the A’s. (Kevin

Jeff Ma: Oakland ‘A’s GM Billy Beane is central to the
story of "Moneyball." Has pulling back the curtain, so to speak, on his
strategy undercut his ability to trade for value?
Lewis: Only he would know. I can’t see how it’s made it easier for
him, but my sense is that the market was moving that way anyway.

Jeff Ma: Do you think the "Moneyball" approach to
performance valuation will take off in other sports?
Lewis: I do, just as I think it will in every business where the
employees are Talent, and paid huge sums of money. (Hollywood, Wall Street,
CEO-land). Baseball is so much cleaner to analyze than any business, or any
other sport.

But I assume progress: the more fancy people get paid, the more it is worth
someone’s time and effort to figure out what they are actually worth. The
spirit of Bill James will be coming to a theatre, or arena, near you.

Jeff Ma: How is the ‘Ladies Auxiliary’ these days?
Lewis: Far calmer than it was three years ago.

For those of you who may not have read the book, the ‘Ladies Auxiliary’ is
the name Lewis gave to the indignant members of the MLB ‘club’ of owners,
management and sporstwriters who, without reading ‘Moneyball’ took to the
airwaves and press to denounce Beane’s approach to quantitative assessment.
Just like the b-school books say, an organization is incapable of reforming
from within.

Incidentally, as part of a new partnership with, we took the PROTRADE black box and
applied our evaluation skills to the first Moneyball draft: 2002.  Turns
out, Billy Beane’s approach has aged pretty well.  Read it on MLB, here.

Can You Use the Word in a Sentence?

Katherine Close is the top speller in the land. The winner of Thursday night’s Scripps National Spelling Bee, she’s an eighth-grader at H.W. Mountz School in Spring Lake, a beach town on the south New Jersey Shore.

That Close attends an actual school is relevant, because some of you bet that she wouldn’t. More specifically, the "Bee" went off at +283 that the winner would be home schooled, +178 that they’d wear glasses (she doesn’t), and +141 that "they" would be a she in the first place.

Oh, and the over/under on letters in the final word was 10.5.

Gambling in America is a curious thing. Mention it, and most of us immediately think slot machines, Vegas, and getting rich. We think the World Series of Poker and fourth quarter mutterings by the announcers on Monday Night Football. The lot of them, we all know, go hand-in-hand.

But gambling isn’t always about the money. If there’s a lesson in the news that bookies, crunching numbers on the educational backgrounds of top spellers past, took time to analyze the participants and set lines on the National Bee, it’s that financial victories alone don’t fulfill the human condition. More satisfying, more often, is the feeling of simply being proven right.

We don’t take Loyola Marymount -4 or the Jets +13 1/2 because we’re simply after that pot of gambling gold. We take them because we believe, strongly, that we know better. And we want to be proven so in a real, tangible, humiliating-for-the-guy-who-is-wrong kind of way.

Better than traditional gambling, that markets can provide such closure so effectively was a driving force behind our founding of PROTRADE. We all wanted more opportunities to weigh in not just on games themselves, but also the prevailing great sports debates of the day (though we hadn’t considered spelling).

Floating our two cents into the ether on sports radio or via message boards, like those endless arguments with your dad over whether Barry Bonds could touch Mickey Mantle, or if LeBron James will be as good as Michael Jordan, just isn’t up to the craving. We’re never truly right if someone else isn’t truly wrong.

Buying and selling shares of players on PROTRADE’s 24/7 marketplace, fans can weigh in with real consequences. Here, there is right and

wrong– and you know it that night, or even within the hour.

So our focus is on sports. You cannot fade Ms. Close and her chance of a repeat with us next year. But you can test your ability to predict the future. We’ve created an athlete market based on our Moneyball Valuation System. 

But there are many other markets in sports that could be compelling.  What about a market to predict the day that Bonds passes Aaron?  Or a market on the number of Super Bowls Tom Brady wins in his career? What sports markets would you like to see?

Email me at with your brightest ideas.

All the Money in the World

Roger Clemens has made some $120 million in MLB salary alone over the course of his career, which is plenty much to spend, but apparently not enough to turn down another $9-12 million to take a late summer swing.

Yeah, I know. You’d take it, too. No blame.

Of course, the question with the Rocket isn’t whether you or I would take the dough to pitch in the big leagues for a few months– most of us would carry his bags for free. But rather, if you ran the roster, would bucking up so much for Clemens really be prudent? Is he still worth it– for half a season, no less?

First– some perspective. The highest-paid pitchers in baseball are the Yankees Mike Mussina ($19 MM), Houston’s Andy Pettitte ($16.43 MM), and the Yankees’ Randy Johnson ($15.66 MM). Even at the rumored low-end, Clemens’ extrapolated salary ($18-24 MM) figures to rival them all.

More importantly, Clemens’ take far outpaces the value of baseball’s top pitching performers this season. In dollar terms, PROTRADE’s Moneyball Player Valuation System ranks Tom Glavine of the Mets ($16.74 MM), Mussina ($15.48 MM), Toronto’s Roy Halladay ($14.18 MM), Tampa Bay’s Scott Kazmir ($13.93 MM) and Chicago’s Jose Contreras ($13.48 MM) as the top contributing pitchers in the majors.

The most valuable player in baseball this season has been St. Louis’ Albert Pujols ($32.68 MM). In fact, the performances of only Pujols and Colorado’s surging Brad Hawpe ($25.81 MM) have been better than the top of Clemens’ proposed salary range.

So does this mean the 43 year-old pitcher wouldn’t be worth the dough? Not exactly.

Consider that Clemens is reportedly expected to take the mound for the first time again in early July. Over the second half of the regular season, he’ll get 15 or so starts over about 75 games for the Astros, Rangers, Yankees, or Red Sox– whomever happens to woo his favor.

Last year, Clemens averaged 1.63 Moneyball Runs per game over his first 15 appearances, equal to $15.10 million in Moneyball Salary if he kept up the pace. Even at the low end, he’d be overpaid.

But the Rocket isn’t coming to play in the dog days of summer. He’s eyeing crunch time, when everyone wants Clemens on the mound and when, he has traditionally played his best.

To be sure, last season he averaged 1.95 Moneyball Runs from starts 16-21, which would correspond with the postseason this time around. That’s equal to $17.54 million in Moneyball Salary, which means the buyer is still overpaying but they’re getting closer.

And that’s the real point, isn’t it?

In measuring what a player should earn based on his performance, we’re taking a mechanical view of worth. This is hugely valuable if you’re evaluating 99% of MLB players in long-term team situations. But in this case of Roger Clemens, a future Hall-of-Famer who can lift a contender over the hump here-and-now, his presence is… well… priceless.

What would Houston or Texas pay to win their first-ever World Championship? Pick a number, any number. That’s what Roger Clemens is really worth, even if he only comes around again for a autumn bow.

And I know he’s worth nothing to me as his place on a Red Sox roster would just taint our second World Championship in 88 years…

Altitude Sickness

Humidity makes baseballs moist and heavy. That’s the drill in Colorado, according to published reports, where the Rockies stick them in a humidor, vying to keep hits in Coors Field, the ball park once notorious for its batter-friendiness.

To be sure, the reputation was warranted.

As measured in total combined runs scored per game, Coors topped the majors in three of the past four seasons, placing second to Texas in the other. Teams averaged some 12 runs per in the high-altitude venue, where the ball is widely-believed to travel 8-10% farther.

We even accounted for the hit-happiness of Coors in devising PROTRADE’s Moneyball scoring system, ratcheting up run-scoring expectations for any situation playing out in Colorado. The net over nine innings is significant– 2.25 runs extra, when compared to a “normal” ballpark.

The question this year is how and why Colorado suddenly became so “normal” itself. Teams are averaging a measly 8.85 runs at Coors so far this 2006. Only the Yankees, White Sox, Twins, Tigers, and Royals home fields have been stingier.

So how has Coors suddenly gone from worst to close to first?

“People don’t want to accept the fact that maybe we’re pitching better,” explained Colorado’s Jason Jennings to the Colorado Springs Gazette.

It figures that Jennings, whose 4.94 ERA this year has been a hint better than his career 5.02, would give credit to himself and the Rockies staff. No major leaguer would readily admit that their success is thanks to a crafty team equipment guy.

Colorado started using the humidor in 2002, and the team saw 12.21 runs scored per game at its new field. That number has stayed relatively constant since, jumping from 11.94 to 12.69 to 11.09.

At less than nine runs, 2006 is, so far, a major anomaly.

Then again, so has been the Rockies performance across the board. Their team ERA is 4.35– a world better than their last two woeful seasons (5.13 & 5.54), over which they managed 67 and 68 wins, respectively.

At 22-19, Colorado is on pace to win 88 this year.

For a franchise that hasn’t cracked .500 in six years and hasn’t sniffed the postseason in a decade, it’s only natural that such new-found success would be met with conspiracy theories. It always pays to be skeptical, but this Mile High mystery isn’t quite ready for Rod Serling.

Say It Ain’t So, Wily Mo

Red Sox Manager Terry Francona says that while CF Wily Mo Pena hastrouble with the glove, he more than makes up for it with his bat.

"He’s not a prototypical centerfielder," Francona said when asked how
Pena would fill the void left by injured starter Coco Crisp. "I do think
his offensive production will outweigh the tough chances in center

Francona didn’t say anything about horseshoes, as he might not be aware
that his husky outfielder has been the luckiest hitter in baseball this
season. Hitting .308, PROTRADE’s Moneyball Valuation system says he
should be hitting just .173.

Keep in mind that playing in Fenway puts Pena in the best position to be
"lucky" as 350 yard fly balls to left aren’t hits in many other parks
but clearly the Sox will need Pena to step up his performance even more.

Last week, we showed you how fans can figure out which players really
should be feeling lucky. Here’s our second installment of PROTRADE’s
lucky/unlucky Top Ten.

PROTRADE’s Lucky Ten
  Player PT AVG   AVG 
1 Wily Mo Pena (BOS) .173 .308
2 John Rodriguez (STL) .292 .380
3 Trot Nixon (BOS) .224 .307
4 Ben Broussard (CLE) .328 .400
5 Hanley Ramirez (FLA) .244 .315
6 Willy Taveras (HOU) .216 .286
7 Eric Hinske (TOR) .245 .311
8 Willie Bloomquist (SEA) .261 .327
9 Omar Infante (DET) .212 .268
10 Gerald Laird (TEX) .269 .325
PROTRADE’s Unlucky Ten
  Player PT AVG   AVG 
1 Aubrey Huff (TB) .263 .156
2 Yadier Molina (STL) .265 .165
3 Edgardo Alfonzo (LAA) .208 .114
4 Barry Bonds (SF) .329 .236
5 Juan Uribe (CWS) .267 .178
6 Tony Clark (ARI) .236 .149
7 Eric Young (SD) .295 .209
8 Russell Branyan (TB) .262 .179
9 David Bell (PHI) .330 .252
10 Luis Matos (BAL) .196 .119

Meet baseball’s $36 million man

What’s a player really worth?

Stuck with traditional statistics, that depends upon how you feel. Are homers the key? How about hits? Is batting average most important of all? Should pitchers be judged on ERA? Or is all about wins?

They’re all great questions that, posed to your average fan, will result in an inevitable range of subjective answers. We value different skills– and, accordingly, different players–for different reasons, none of which have quite everything to do with winning, and all of which should be consumed only with a healthy dose of dollars-and-cents perspective.

Regular readers and active traders know how PROTRADE’s Moneyball Valuation System offers clarity, objectively measuring a player’s total game. But in sports, better performance means more dollars. That’s why last week, we started calculating MLB Moneyball Salaries, converting those performance ratings into cold, hard currency.

Yankees SS Derek Jeter is hitting .339 this season, playing like a $5 million per year major-league superstar. Problem is, he’s actually a $20.6 million per-year major-league superstar. He’s been good this season, but not good enough to earn his considerable keep.

Meanwhile, $20.4 million per-year Bronx superstar Jason Giambi is outplaying his pay grade. PROTRADE values his season-to-date performance (extrapolated through 162 games) at $25.6 million.

Yankees P Mike Mussina is just about earning his $19 million per-year salary, exactly. And newbie CF Johnny Damon– he’s been worth about $18 million thus far, $5 million better than the $13 million Boston wouldn’t pay.

In rejecting Damon’s hefty salary demands, the Red Sox proved the point that even "big market," wealthy teams care deeply about value. Boston could have afforded the All-Star, and he might have even proved a better CF option than anyone the team might recruit to fill his void. But at $13 million per-year, they made the decision that Damon wasn’t worth it.

Browse our Moneyball numbers, position-by-position, and it isn’t hard to see why. Among CF, only the Mets’ Carlos Beltran ($13.6 million), the Braves’ Andruw Jones ($13.5 million), and the Cards’ Jim Edmonds ($12.1 million) earn in that range. This season, Beltran ($16.8 million Moneyball Salary) and Jones ($15.4 million) are outperforming their salaries. But Edmonds–  he’s playing at but a $2 million clip.

1B Albert Pujols is more than making up for his St. Louis teammate. The slugger is performing at a $36 million pace– tops in baseball and enough to make him, at $14 million per-year in contract salary, one of the league’s five most underpaid players.

Who are the others? How about overpaid? On your team? Check out our Moneyball  section today, and root and cheer with perspective.

Feeling lucky?

Chicago White Sox SS Juan Uribe is in an early-season hitting slump, spending much of April below the proveribal Mendoza Line before wrapping the month at a sub-Mark Belanger-esque .167.

Would you believe Uribe if he gave the excuse that he’s been just plain unlucky?

Would you believe me?

Because baseball is a game of inches. And because here at PROTRADE we’ve mapped every one of them, charting every batted ball in the majors over the past four years, calculating the probability that given their direction and distance, they become hits, I can quantify and confirm what Uribe is feeling.

Indeed Juan, you’ve been unlucky.

That’s unlucky, as in considering the balls he’s hit how they turn out in the majors on average, Uribe should be hitting more than 100 points higher– or .277.

At least he doesn’t suffer alone: The Angels’ Edgardo Alfonzo, Padres’ Eric Young, Cardinals’ Yadier Molina, and A’s Mark Ellis all also ended April below .200.

On the flipside, Boston’s Manny Ramirez, Arizona’s Chris Snyder, and Houston’s Willy Taveras should all be hitting below .200 but aren’t. Perhaps they did good works in the off-season.

Look to this space throughout the season for weekly PROTRADE’s Lucky/Unlucky updates. And if you see Jim Tracy, ask him what Freddy Sanchez needs to do to crack that Pittsburgh lineup.

PROTRADE’s Unlucky Ten

Player BA PT BA
1- Edgardo Alfonzo (LAA) .125 .287
2- Barry Bonds  (SF) .250 .396
3- Juan Uribe (CWS) .167 .277
4- Eric Young  (SD) .176 .286
5- Freddy Sanchez (PIT) .352 .458
6- Eduardo Perez (CLE) .300 .403
7- Yadier Molina (STL) .149 .245
8- David Bell (PHI) .247 .334
9- Albert Pujols (STL) .329 .416
10- Mark Ellis (OAK) .185 .269

PROTRADE’s Lucky Ten

Player BA PT BA
1 -Brad Ausmus (HOU) .358 .229
2- John Rodriguez (STL) .424 .302
3- Mark Bellhorn (SD) .316 .193
4- Chris Burke (HOU) .400 .278
5- Prince Fielder (MIL) .343 .236
6- Chris Snyder (ARI) .273 .171
7- Willy Taveras (HOU) .265 .170
8- Kevin Youkilis (BOS) .293 .200
9- Manny Ramirez (BOS) .289 .198
10- Trot Nixon (BOS) .303 .218