David Laurila of the Red Sox Nation website recently interviewed me on the topic of — what else? — Mind Game as part of a five-part series (part one, with Steve Goldman, is already up). Pedro Martinez, David Ortiz, Alex Rodriguez, and relief aces were some of the topics I addressed. Here’s a sample:

RSN: If the Red Sox were smart enough to acquire David Ortiz, why weren’t other teams — specifically the Yankees with their inviting porch in right field?

JJ: The Yanks had just made a huge commitment (7 yrs/$120 million) to Jason Giambi, and he’d hit a pretty sweet .314/.435/.598 with 41 homers in the first year of the contract. They also were developing Nick Johnson, an OBP machine with some power and a decent glove, better at least than Giambi’s, and considered the jewel of an otherwise nearly barren farm system. At that point they were well covered at the position, and they didn’t really have a need for another slow, burly DH type.

Let’s not forget that prior to 2003, Ortiz had shown some potential but not accomplished very much prior to coming to Boston. His best season was worth only about 3.5 WARP because of injuries, usage issues, and clashes with the Twins brass. Many teams were turned off by what appeared to be a pretty limited collection of talents, and big, slow first base types who don’t field well are a dime a dozen. The credit goes to the Sox management for spotting a diamond in the rough and to hitting coach Ron Jackson for helping Ortiz figure out how to take advantage of his strength and of Fenway.

One of the questions I was asked dealt with a finding credited to fellow BP author James Click, namely, that a pitcher’s ERA improves the more he faces the team. Based solely on what I saw in Mind Game, which is to say a very brief summary of some deeper research, I have a hard time accepting that premise. Oddly enough, today’s New York Times, in the “Keeping Score” column by David Leonhardt where BP authors have made several appearances, takes a look at Click’s work. Here, the assertion appears to be the opposite:

Pitchers are at their most effective in their first appearance of the season against an opponent. In that situation last season, starters had an E.R.A. about 0.23 lower than their season-long average, according to research by James Click of Baseball Prospectus, an online magazine.

The advantage disappears in the next matchup, and the playing field is essentially level. Facing a team for the second or third time, pitchers roughly matched their average performance, Click found.

Then the edge goes to the hitters. A pitcher’s E.R.A. rises about 0.22 above his average during appearances four, five and beyond.

So this would appear to say that the advantage goes to the hitter as the gets more acquainted, something which makes much more intuitive sense. Particularly when it comes to relievers with limited repertoires, the hitter’s familiarity with his stuff would appear to be an advantage.

I asked Click a handful of questions about the piece — specifically, where the data is coming from — and he pointed me to this piece from back in April. Data for 2002, 2003, and 2004 all shows a similar trend of pitchers improving slightly the more times they face a team, but once the selection bias of having only the better pitchers come back for repeat engagements, the tables turn:

As opposed to the apparent improvement in performance as appearances increase, pitchers actually perform worse as their appearances mount. Pitchers performed about a quarter of a run better in their initial appearance against batters than we would expect from their complete season performance, but performed steadily worse as appearances mounted. The discrepancy between the expected and actual ERA in the initial performance against a team is especially conclusive given the massive sample size of innings involved in the initial appearance. Teams may be pretty good about selecting the correct pitchers for the majority of the playing time, but diminishing returns increase as those pitchers face the same teams more and more during a season.

So the scales tip in favor of the hitters as time goes on, contrary to what was asserted in the interview and when the topic was briefly addressed in Mind Game. In an email, Click told me that the issue is something he’s been meaning to revisit on a larger scale, so I don’t think we’ve heard the last on the topic. Stay tuned.