I asked if Over the Monster wanted to hear what I had to think about Edgar Renteria, and you guys said you did. I know he hit a homerun tonight, I know, but that doesn't keep him from having the emptiest batting average on the team. Let's see what I said about him when he was signed:
I've got alot of crap for being negative about Edgar, but as of now I stand correct, not corrected.
What exactly is it that bothers me, besides a poor performance? Well, the fact that the Red Sox paid for his 2003 season rather than what he will do in the future bugs me to no end, but let's take a look at a comparison, shall we?
1999 - .253/.308/.374; .225 EqA
2000 - .355/.409/.541; .306 EqA
2001 - .258/.331/.360; .243 EqA
2002 - .283/.313/.389; .247 EqA
2003 - .252/.309/.333; .233 EqA
2004 - .295/.322/.452; .263 EqA
2005 - .296/.354/.401; .267 EqA
2001 - .260/.314/.371; .245 EqA
2002 - .305/.364/.439; .284 EqA
2003 - .330/.394/.480; .306 EqA
2004 - .287/.327/.401; .252 EqA
2005 - .266/.316/.399; .245 EqA
The highlighted seasons are outliers, abberations if you will. Before anyone gets excited about Renteria getting some hits last night, remember this: even bad players put up good numbers on occasion. The numbers there don't lie; Renteria, minus 2003 and to an extent 2002, never really did much except hit singles. His fielding numbers aren't that much better. Let's use FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Average) to see how he stands:
1998: -11; 91
1999: -14; 90
2000: 3; 102
2001: 10; 107
2002: -11; 92
2003: 2; 101
2004 -7; 95
2005: -11; 82
A lot of poor numbers there, letting you know 2005's defensive performance may not be a fluke. The second number after the semi colon is his Rate. Rate is a defensive statistic that shows the runs above or below average a player is per 100 games played. 100 is average, so Renteria in 2005 is 18 runs below league average at his position per 100 games played, or in laymans' terms, I just threw up in my mouth.
The Red Sox are paying Edgar Renteria a lot of money to play below league average. He is below average with the bat (.245 EqA; .260 is league average, .230 is replacement level) and his defense, as stated above, is below average. Is he simply going through a rough spot this year? The comparison to Darin Erstad makes me think that no, this is what we signed. Look at his 2004 numbers for St. Louis, and they honestly are not all that much different. His batting average is higher, but average doesn't tell the whole story anyways. His EqA was only a few points higher, and still below average. And what of his batting average this year anyways?
SecAvg tells more of the story (although I still like EqA the best of all). His power just is not existent, and he has hit into 12 double plays so far this year. His GB/FB ratio is even driving me nuts, at 1.90. He hits everything on the ground, someone tell me how many infield hits he has in comparison to XBH. I want to wrap this up intelligently, but I don't see the point. Sometimes numbers lie, but sadly for Renteria and the Sox checkbook, I think they are right here.