i noticed during the game that finley's rbi numbers aren't that horrific, considering his awful season. but i looked at the numbers compared to last year and was surprised to find out how similar his numbers really are:

More below the fold:

Last year he went:  628 ABs, 28 Doubles, 36 HRs, 94 RBI

2005 Season to Date, he's gone:  391 ABs, 20 Doubles, 12 HRs, 54 RBI

Okay, not the most productive season in the history of the world.  However, adjusting for a full season of ABs (last year's 628) shows that, at his season-long below average, tear-our-hair-out-that-he-is-still-in-the-lineup pace extrapolated to playing a full season, he actually comes VERY close to last year's production numbers:

628 ABs adjusts to: 32 doubles (12 more than last year), 22 HRs (14 less than last year), and 88 RBI (only SIX! less than last year -- and all of this considering he's hitting 50 points lower than he did last year!

The homerun disparity is the only real eye-popping production drop (other than the 50 point drop in batting average, but the sharp increase in doubles may
account for this: 12 more doubles, 14 less homeruns --> half of those were probably a drop in distance per fly ball, the other half due to ballpark differentials -- but his rate of extra base hits actually went up this year, he  averaged 1 extra-base hit per 2.4 ABs this season, last year it was 1 per every 2.8 ABs.  

If he hadn't been injured and tried to play through it, he likely would have been able to top 100 rbis even if he only hit .240. not bad. If he had put up a season of hitting .240-.250, with 22-25, homeruns, 30+ doubles, and 90 rbi, would he really have been such a disappointment, statistically? (the strike-outs with the bases loaded still suck).  I'm not so sure it would have been, considering what he put up last year. The only real difference would have been an upswing in doubles and a downswing in homeruns, offset by the equal number of RBIs.

Food for thought, at least. Now, he just better not screw up in the playoffs.