Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but ... bad. The idea seemed to be to eat it most of the way around the diamond, and make up for it offensively. That's not happening. It's hard to call the defense historically bad, because the strikeout rate is like 250% of the rate in 1908, to pick a year, but it's costing them games, certainly. Oh c'mon. Use your head, ferchrissakes. When the author says "historically", you know he means the seven years for which his data exists. there are so many worse things to complain about i agree, but a better phrase might have been "worst in recent memory" or something like that. "historically" to me definitely has the connotation of "in baseball history"