I was amused by Jonathan Last’s analysis (H/T
Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard) as to why he
thinks Mitt Romney will again fail to win the GOP nomination. Last
argues that Romney has no “core constituency” and has an abysmal
election record - GOP primaries included:
Combine that with the rest of his runs and you get a 17-year
career average of 5-18. I don’t think you could find any other
figure in politics who has run this far below the Mendoza line and
still managed to get taken seriously as a presidential
candidate.
For those of you unfamiliar with the Mendoza Line, it refers to
the batting futility of Mario
Mendoza who played in the big leagues from 1974 to 1982 with
the Pittsburgh Pirates, Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers. While
Mendoza was a good fielding shortstop, his offense was anemic. In
nine big league seasons, the Mexican born infielder had a
lifetime batting average of .215. In general terms, the Mendoza
Line refers to any batter who has a batting average of .200 or
below.
The term “Mendoza Line” was
coined by Kansas City Royals legend George Brett. During a
slump early in the 1980 season. Brett told reporters, “The first
thing I look for in the Sunday papers is who hit below the Mendoza
line.” That season, Brett would flirt with history as he nearly
became the first player to hit .400 since Ted Williams almost forty
years earlier. Brett would hit
.390 for the AL champion Royals and win the AL MVP. Curiously,
Mendoza also hit a career high .245 in 118 games for the Mariners
that season.
Now I think that Last is being somewhat unfair to Romney. Last
characterizes Romney as being “far below the Mendoza Line” when, in
fact, Romney is slightly above it. If we take Romney’s 5-18 record
as a batting statistic, it means Romney has gone 5 for 23 which
translates into a batting average of .217. Even if Romney isn’t
actually below the Mendoza Line, he is far too close to it. A .217
batting average would only be acceptable if a) you are a National
League pitcher or b) are a prodigious homerun hitter like Dave
Kingman. In 1982, while with the New York Mets, Kingman batted
only .204 but slammed 37 homeruns and posted 99 RBI. This
generation’s Kingman would be Baltimore Orioles third
baseman Mark
Reynolds. Last season, while with the Arizona Diamondbacks,
Reynolds hit .198 but belted 32 homeruns along with 85 RBI. In
his first season with the Orioles, Reynolds has raised his
average nearly thirty points to a modest .226 along with 31
homeruns and 72 RBI. Carlos
Pena of the Chicago Cubs could also stake a claim as Kingman’s
heir. I think it would be fair to say that Last thinks of Romney as
neither a National League pitcher nor a power hitter. Suffice it to
say, Mendoza hit only four homeruns during his entire big league
career.
Yet one could make the argument that Brett unfairly singled out
Mendoza. Yes, Mendoza will never be confused for Ted Williams yet
he was hardly the only weak hitter of his era. What about The
Kelleher
Line? Mick Kelleher was a contemporary of Mendoza who played in
the big leagues as an infielder from 1972 to 1982 with the St.
Louis Cardinals, Houston Astros, Chicago Cubs, Detroit Tigers and
the California Angels. His lifetime batting average was .213 -
two points below Mendoza. Yet Kelleher, who has been the
New York Yankees first base coach since 2009, never achieved
Mendoza’s notoriety. In over 1,200 big league plate appearances,
Kelleher never hit a homerun. I mean even Duane Kuiper, best
known for calling San Francisco Giants games, hit
one homerun. To be fair, Kuiper did have a respectable .271
lifetime batting average in twelve big league
seasons. Kuiper hit more than 50 points above Kelleher,
Mendoza and Romney.
Now Last does make a point of counting Romney’s decision not to
run for re-election here in Massachusetts in 2006 as a loss. Last
notes that some “might be more charitable” on that score. But I’m
inclined to agree with Last. If Romney had run for re-election,
Deval Patrick would have beat him as nearly as convincingly as he
beat Romney’s Lieutenant Governor, Kerry Healey and his
presidential ambitions would have been stopped dead in their
tracks. Romney declined to run for his own political survival.
Indeed, by February 2005, Romney was openly bad
mouthing the Bay State while outside its borders.
Coincidentally, it was also probably the last time Jon Huntsman
would publicly
refer to Romney as “the most exciting and effective leader in
the Republican Party today.”
If there is a silver lining for Romney it’s that his past
performance doesn’t necessarily guarantee what will happen in the
future. Even a guy who’s batting .217 could get hot. At the moment,
it appears that Michele Bachmann peaked too soon and it’s now Rick
Perry’s race to lose. If Perry does stumble chances are Romney
would be the beneficiary. With that said, if Romney were to somehow
lose the New Hampshire primary again it would be game over. So
Romney does have two strikes against him. But he does have one
more pitch coming. Let’s see what he can do with it.
