David Ortiz is the lone entrant to the Hall of Fame this year.
61 thoughts on “January 26, 2022: Coops”
Kaat and Oliva beg to differ.
My favorite Simpsons quote of all time got highlighted yesterday on Twitter. It's such a perfect throwaway line, but also perfect response in its simplicity
I just looked and discovered that the line was written by Brent Forrester. I had never heard of him, so a quick Google reveals that he also wrote my favorite sketch comedy sketch of all time. It's also brilliant in its duality of being both incredibly simple and hilariously deep:
That is quite good!
One of my favorite podcasts makes semi-frequent references to this sketch.
That is awesome
One of the Simpsons guys I follow revealed that this was where the joke started:
Courtney Love.
Homer Like. (or "Homer Confused." They never got Courtney Love so they didn't have to settle on which)
The writer felt the line ended up even better, and I agree.
Ubelmann's analysis of Papi's HOF credentials yesterday was spot on.
It's funny, years past I didn't have a strong opinion on Bonds and Clemons being on the Hall. I could see arguments for going in or staying out. But yesterday knowing that it was the "final" time for consideration, it really bothered me that they aren't. I think it was the fact that Ortiz made it in the first ballot that pushed me over to the "they should be there" camp.
Me too.
The hypocrisy and power of the writers really bugs me.
I don't have a problem with Bonds and Clemens having to wait for some Veteran's Committee putting them in. I have more of a problem of the Ortiz's, Reynolds's, Mazeroski's, or Rice's getting in.
Do you think that will happen? I've read that they are even more unforgiving. Maybe once some off the old timers die off.
*shrug*
I'm kind of skeptical that Clemens or Bonds would make it in through the VC. Maybe Clemens because it seemed like some of his teammates would stick up for him, but in general I don't particularly get the impression that they were well-liked.
To be honest, Seligula’s induction bothered me more, in terms of PEDs and Bonds/Clemens, than Ortiz. If the guy who was the head of the sport during the entire period gets a pass for his handling of the PED Era, then penalizing guys who used PEDs with what amounted to a wink-wink from MLB seems the height of hypocrisy.
That said, I think Ortiz’ induction presents all kinds of problems with evaluation of guys who spent the majority of their careers as DHs against position player candidates & inductees, and ubes’ analysis ran those down very well.
I’ll also say that if, following Ortiz’ induction, DH is now a position that merits its own consistent standards and cadre of inductees, then so does the modern closer. If, given changes in starting pitcher use during the modern era, Hall standards shift to accommodate departures from historical standards for induction, then closers merit greater consideration given the leverage value of the innings they frequently pitch. Either way, Joe Nathan — just like Johan before him — was absolutely jobbed.
Just wait until Rob Manfred is inducted.
I honestly wonder if I will be a baseball fan by that point. It’s very clear to me the owners have no interest in things I care about — the value of the regular season, the aesthetics of the game, and the sustainability of the sport — and will instead undermine all of those in search of every short-term earnings scheme they can devise.
Given how MLB has embraced and prioritized sports gambling in recent years, I’m already at the point where I’m having second thoughts about how much I try to cultivate the Poissonnière’s interest in baseball. Severing my family’s generational connection with the game will simply cause me to shift my interests to the sports we can watch together without Big Tobacco Gambling plastered all over the screen.
Good luck. Gambling is seeping into all facets of American sport.
I'd give you 2-1 that gambling won't get too far...
I’m hopeful that cross country, crew, curling, & racquetball will escape gambling’s influence.
She’s already taking piano & tap lessons. A friend of mine & I have talked a few times about encouraging our girls to pursue martial arts training in lieu of participation in traditional sports. Maybe time devoted to those three things would crowd out time for American spectator sports anyway.
The Older Daughter seems like she will actually want to take up rugby refereeing. She's way more interested in them than the players.
The Younger Daughter doesn't really get what's going on yet, but she's sure physical enough to be a good player if she ever wants to be.
This song was featured in episode 2(?) of cocaine and rhinestones.
Three. And it's a reeeaaalllly rough one.
(I recently started that pod and played one from the first episode a few days ago just in case you've been away.)
Rough doesn’t begin to describe..
I'm wondering how the organized mob's MLB's takeover of the baseball card industry affects my interest going forward, too
I had hoped to move my baseball interest out of MLB and into townball, but I haven't been OK with going to games in person lately.
Hopefully this summer is the year I can start that transition.
I figure the WGOM Road Trip to Cooperstown to see Mauer's induction is the only thing left I will actively seek out about MLB
I think that's cool, but I would still miss the roar of the crowd. That kind of energy can be so thrilling. But MLB, please save the canned music and organ for between hitters, make the pitchers work quickly, and just let me talk in peace with my friends in between innings. I know, it doesn't really help to type this out, but it's more or less my confessional booth.
TBH, my interest in baseball has waned over the last 7 or 8 years. The girls, through less free time, and Manfred, through is actions as commissioner, have certainly hastened the process
I'm glad to hear about your interest in town ball. I've found that my interest in baseball has shifted a bit, from involvement with my kids' teams, to playing in the backyard, to our townball team, etc. My interest in baseball overall remains about the same, but I'm probably paying less attention to the MLB product than I used to. Still quite a bit (especially with fantasy baseball), but less than it used to be.
Indeed, that's part of why all the criticism resonates so strongly with me: I love the sport itself, and I wish the owners did too. Instead, it seems to be an absusive relationship.
Mine has, too, in general, but it still interests me when I do get the chance to watch.
I'm in favor of some more radical changes than you are, but I am always thinking about the sustainability of baseball in the end. I want it to be small talk in the summer, I want to enjoy some summer nights at the ballpark with an enthusiastic crowd.
Like I would really love a radical realignment (the end of the AL/NL split, but two leagues of four divisions aligned geographically) with the addition of two teams, so more games can be played in each team's home time zone. Baseball has a lot more entertainment to compete with now, and I think optimizing for good game times is important.
I'm in favor of some sort of pitch clock -- I think hitters can be kept in check by the home plate umpire better than pitchers (because pitchers have the ball and initiate play), and statistically there are massive, massive differences between pitchers in how long they take between pitches. The details might matter, but something to keep the average time between pitches down is absolutely a better experience for fans. I don't think fans today are all that different from fans 70 years ago, but I think 70 years ago there wasn't any thought to the idea of taking longer between pitches giving the pitcher an edge by getting that much more rest between pitches.
I'm in favor of some kind of extra-innings limitation in the regular season. Whether it's through extra baserunners starting in the 11th inning or just ending games with a tie after 12 innings, outside the very diehard fans who are going to love baseball anyway, I don't think the marathon games are a good fan experience, and they aren't good for player health.
All this would make it easier for me to be more engaged with baseball -- shorter games that are shown at convenient times. The revenue sharing situation is still a mess and that hurts nation-wide attention more than it should, too.
One place I think we agree is the value of the regular season. With a 4-division, 2-league setup (imbalanced such that every team plays the same schedule as everyone else within their division, but play within their division more than within their league), I'd have 8 teams make the playoffs -- top two from each division, 1A vs. 2B, 2A vs. 1B, 3A vs. 4B, For a long time when the World Series was the only level of the playoffs, there was 1 playoff team per 8 teams. I think it's alright for there to be 2 playoff teams per 8 teams, in recognition of a playoff calendar that includes a division series and a league series, but more than that does rub me the wrong way. Also, I think it's fair to decide the playoff teams within a division when they've played the same schedule as each other, but since the other division within the league played a different schedule, it's possible the 2nd-best team in a division is the 2nd-best team in the league, so having 1st in a division play 2nd in a different division is a way to settle that on the field. Top 2 in an 8-team division would be difficult to achieve and in general you would have pennant fights going down deep into September.
Vikings hired Browns’ VP of football operations Kwesi Adofo-Mensah as their general manager, per source.
Anthony Edwards goes off last night (40 points!) and I scope out Canis this morning and the first comment is that he didnt pass enough *face palm*
I didn't get home until just after the game ended. By the highlights, it looked like a pretty great game.
The Wolves were sluggish in the first half but Portland let them hang around and then ANT took over.
ANT eurostepping all over the place looked like fun.
This is where I reiterate that the Euro step is the most aesthetically pleasing move in sports.
I watched. I almost bailed completely as the second quarter fell apart, but the comeback was a joy. The last couple of minutes were draining on my psyche, but I suppose that's what brought me to basketball in the first place.
At halftime, Kevin Lynch was prattling on about how the Wolves offense needed to run through KAT and that they were losing because Ant was scoring too much.
Why do they still employ that guy?
He’s one of us.
Woof. He is so bad.
For some reason I'm stuck on this Ortiz thing. Wanted to look at it a different way. It seems pretty clear his best 10-year period was 2004-2013, when he made the All-Star team every year.
To take position completely out of it, we can look at something like wRC+ -- it's nice because it's on Fangraphs and you can do multi-year custom splits.
So considering everyone in baseball from 2004-2013, Ortiz had the 8th-highest wRC+ with 147 wRC+. Directly ahead of him is Ryan Braun at 148 wRC+ and directly behind him is Lance Berkman at 147 wRC+.
And I think that gets me to the root of the question -- if you are 8th best at your position (hitter) over the best 10-year period of your career, are you really worth a HOF induction? Ryan Braun was just as productive over that time period with 2000 fewer plate appearances.
If you look at career wOBA (a rate statistic) for players with at least 5000 PA, Gary Sheffield (.391) pops up right next to David Ortiz (.392). They were essentially equivalent hitters by rate, Sheffield played more games than Ortiz, and Sheffield had a lot more defensive value as you can tell by comparing their WAR (51.0 for Ortiz to 62.1 for Sheffield). But Sheffield had 12% of the vote on his first ballot and Ortiz got 77% of the vote on his first ballot? Sheffield was even on the same ballot as Ortiz and is only up to 41% of the vote. How can a guy hit just as well as a HOF designated hitter, play three different positions in the field, and be less qualified for the HOF?
Including David Ortiz, the BBWAA has voted just 89 non-pitchers into the HOF. Let's say that's 11 inductees per non-P position. I would assert to be a HOF DH, you should be at least one of the best 33 hitters of all time. Why 33? Pre-DH, an all-bat, no-glove guy would have ended up in LF, RF, or 1B. Historical defensive comparisons are problematic at best, so we don't know which (if any) of those players might have ended up as a DH if a DH rule had existed. By including all of them in the DH comparison, we give DHs the benefit of the doubt that they might have been a better fielder than one of those guys if the DH position hadn't existed during, say, Frank Thomas' career.
Who are the best 33 hitters of all time? Let's rank by wOBA, filtered to at least 7500 PA, which is roughly a 12.5-year career. Also, I'll filter to 1903 and after, since before 1903 in the AL (and 1901 in the NL), foul balls didn't even count as strikes. That's the kind of fundamental rule change that I think is difficult to adjust for.
I've left off Bonds (.435) because steroids, and to give Ortiz the benefit of the doubt, but ultimately I'm sure Ortiz was using too.
Top 12-22
.427 -- Harry Heilmann
.416 -- Frank Thomas
.412 -- Larry Walker
.411 -- Bob Johnson
.410 -- Al Simmons
.409 -- Eddie Collins
.409 -- Willie Mays
.407 -- Honus Wagner
.406 -- Gentleman Jim Thome
.405 -- Jeff Bagwell
.405 -- Edgar Martinez
Hadn't heard of Heilmann before -- played 1914-1932, was a 1952 BBWAA inductee, mostly 1B/OF.
Bob Johnson is interesting, too. Played 1933-1945, primarily OF. Only 8,047 PA to Ortiz's ~10,000 PA, but his 57.0 fWAR is better than Ortiz's 51.0 fWAR. Johnson's not a BBWAA HOF pick.
Here I've also left off Manny Ramirez (.418) and McGwire (.415) because steroids, again to give Ortiz the benefit of the doubt.
Top 23-33
.405 -- Todd Helton
.405 -- Charlie Gehringer
.404 -- Duke Snider
.404 -- Frank Robinson
.403 -- Paul Waner
.402 -- Goose Goslin
.400 -- Lance Berkman
.400 -- Joey Votto
.399 -- Arky Vaughan
.397 -- Chipper Jones
.395 -- Mike Schmidt
Goslin's mildly interesting -- 64.0 fWAR career as an outfielder. Played 1921-1938, wasn't a BBWAA pick.
Todd Helton's not in the HOF. He was a better hitter than David Ortiz, played in the field (and thus has a better fWAR), and had only 500 PA less than Ortiz.
Arky Vaughan wasn't a BBWAA pick, one of those times the Veteran's committee put in someone who was truly snubbed.
I left off Alex Rodriguez because steroids, again to give Ortiz the benefit of the doubt.
So if we leave off 4 "steroids" guys, Ortiz still isn't in the top 33 hitters since 1903. But he probably used, and should really be compared to all hitters of his era, since we really don't know who did or didn't use steroids, and if we look at 1996-2015, the top hitters with at least 7500 PA by wOBA are:
1 -- .422 -- Manny Ramirez
2 -- .409 -- Gentleman Jim Thome
3 -- .409 -- Albert Pujols
4 -- .405 -- Miguel Cabrera
5 -- .405 -- Todd Helton
6 -- .401 -- Alex Rodriguez
7 -- .400 -- Lance Berkman
8 -- .400 -- Gary Sheffield
9 -- .399 -- Chipper Jones
10 -- .395 -- Jason Giambi
11 -- .394 -- Carlos Delgado
12 -- .390 -- Vladimir Guerrero
13 -- .390 -- David Ortiz
14 -- .387 -- Brian Giles
15 -- .378 -- Bobby Abreu
13th best hitter of his era when you consider all players and all positions? I just am not buying him as a DH selection for the HOF.
But from looking at all this, I would definitely say that Todd Helton, Joey Votto, and Gary Sheffield should all be in the HOF. They did enough just at the plate to warrant inclusion, even from a "small Hall" standpoint where you exclude most of the Veteran's Committee selections. Put Ortiz in the Jim Rice wing.
I’ve got really nothing to add except to say that it’s always a pleasure to read your analysis.
That and there is a lot of juice on the 96/2015 list.
I enjoyed it as well.
My one comment is that the top-heaviness of that list with pre-WWII stars and other stars from before the lowering of the mound makes me think that it is really important to think through why that is and what it should mean for analyzing HOF qualities. Not an endorsement of Big Papi or argument against ubes' analysis at all, btw. Just an observation.
That's true, I was thinking about that a bit myself. I think it would be an improvement both to normalize by the averages for the different eras (which is what typically happens now), but also by the variance around each statistic in each era as well. I am pretty sure that there is just generally more variance in the pre-WWII stats, as baseball didn't pay as well, they were excluding Black ballplayers, and just generally the level of play was lower. If so, normalizing by variance would tend to decrease the normalized values for players of yore.
Thanks.
I’m with meat - really appreciate these ubes.
The CEO if the Red Sox called Ortiz the “most important person” to ever play for the Red Sox. I want to know the criteria for that. They did have a left fielder player in four decades who hit .406 one year and slammed 521 HRs despite missing parts of five seasons fighting in two wars. But sure, Big Papi.
The absolute disrespect.
First off, as I think you would agree--Ted Williams was arguably the best hitter ever, he played a good left field, he won two AL MVPs, and made the all-star team every year except his rookie year and 1952 when he only played 6 games.
Secondly, what about Pedro Martinez? Why on earth would you want to forget about a guy like that? Pedro came to the Red Sox in 1998, and aside from the strike-shortened season in 1995, Boston hadn't even been to the playoffs since 1990. In '98 he absolutely carried that rotation with 233 IP and a 3.40 FIP (non-park-adjusted) in Fenway, and they got back to the playoffs. Second in Cy Young voting. In '99 and '00, he won back-to-back Cy Young Awards. In 2001, he was hurt, but then in '02 and '03 he was absolutely dominant both years, with the best FIP in the league not just averaged over the two seasons, but also individually for each season. For a 6-year stretch, he was the best or second-best pitcher in the AL. Has to be one of the greatest peaks of all time for a starting pitcher. Without him, Boston would have struggled to keep up in the AL East, would have done worse ticket sales, a worse media deal, and would have struggled to both have the money to move to Yankee-level spending, but also to attract free agent talent to stay there.
And then in 2004, Pedro was not as good as Schilling, but still had an excellent season and helped them to their first World Series win. Even if you wanted to focus just on that year, Manny hit better than Ortiz (like he usually does), and did it while hitting behind Ortiz and at least being able to wear a glove in the field.
Ortiz was a great hitter, but my how short people's memories are.
Martínez convinced the front office to sign Ortiz and "convinced" (possibly bullied) Grady Little into giving Ortiz more playing time. It did help Boston's preferred choice, Jeremy Giambi, had a .696 OPS that year.
I didn't know that, but that wouldn't surprise me.
That Yaz guy was a real slacker, too. His career rWAR is only 93.7% the combined total of Ortiz & Jim Rice’s careers.
As I may have mentioned elsewhere, there was this guy named "Ruth" who wore a Red Sox uniform for a while too.
Won some World Championships with them, too! He was a great pitcher, but you know, it's better to trade a guy too soon than too late and sure enough, his pitching career tailed off rapidly.
Kaat and Oliva beg to differ.
My favorite Simpsons quote of all time got highlighted yesterday on Twitter. It's such a perfect throwaway line, but also perfect response in its simplicity
That's my favorite line too
I just looked and discovered that the line was written by Brent Forrester. I had never heard of him, so a quick Google reveals that he also wrote my favorite sketch comedy sketch of all time. It's also brilliant in its duality of being both incredibly simple and hilariously deep:
That is quite good!
One of my favorite podcasts makes semi-frequent references to this sketch.
That is awesome
One of the Simpsons guys I follow revealed that this was where the joke started:
Courtney Love.
Homer Like. (or "Homer Confused." They never got Courtney Love so they didn't have to settle on which)
The writer felt the line ended up even better, and I agree.
Ubelmann's analysis of Papi's HOF credentials yesterday was spot on.
It's funny, years past I didn't have a strong opinion on Bonds and Clemons being on the Hall. I could see arguments for going in or staying out. But yesterday knowing that it was the "final" time for consideration, it really bothered me that they aren't. I think it was the fact that Ortiz made it in the first ballot that pushed me over to the "they should be there" camp.
Me too.
The hypocrisy and power of the writers really bugs me.
I don't have a problem with Bonds and Clemens having to wait for some Veteran's Committee putting them in. I have more of a problem of the Ortiz's, Reynolds's, Mazeroski's, or Rice's getting in.
Do you think that will happen? I've read that they are even more unforgiving. Maybe once some off the old timers die off.
*shrug*
I'm kind of skeptical that Clemens or Bonds would make it in through the VC. Maybe Clemens because it seemed like some of his teammates would stick up for him, but in general I don't particularly get the impression that they were well-liked.
To be honest, Seligula’s induction bothered me more, in terms of PEDs and Bonds/Clemens, than Ortiz. If the guy who was the head of the sport during the entire period gets a pass for his handling of the PED Era, then penalizing guys who used PEDs with what amounted to a wink-wink from MLB seems the height of hypocrisy.
That said, I think Ortiz’ induction presents all kinds of problems with evaluation of guys who spent the majority of their careers as DHs against position player candidates & inductees, and ubes’ analysis ran those down very well.
I’ll also say that if, following Ortiz’ induction, DH is now a position that merits its own consistent standards and cadre of inductees, then so does the modern closer. If, given changes in starting pitcher use during the modern era, Hall standards shift to accommodate departures from historical standards for induction, then closers merit greater consideration given the leverage value of the innings they frequently pitch. Either way, Joe Nathan — just like Johan before him — was absolutely jobbed.
Just wait until Rob Manfred is inducted.
I honestly wonder if I will be a baseball fan by that point. It’s very clear to me the owners have no interest in things I care about — the value of the regular season, the aesthetics of the game, and the sustainability of the sport — and will instead undermine all of those in search of every short-term earnings scheme they can devise.
Given how MLB has embraced and prioritized sports gambling in recent years, I’m already at the point where I’m having second thoughts about how much I try to cultivate the Poissonnière’s interest in baseball. Severing my family’s generational connection with the game will simply cause me to shift my interests to the sports we can watch together without Big
TobaccoGambling plastered all over the screen.Good luck. Gambling is seeping into all facets of American sport.
I'd give you 2-1 that gambling won't get too far...
I’m hopeful that cross country, crew, curling, & racquetball will escape gambling’s influence.
She’s already taking piano & tap lessons. A friend of mine & I have talked a few times about encouraging our girls to pursue martial arts training in lieu of participation in traditional sports. Maybe time devoted to those three things would crowd out time for American spectator sports anyway.
The Older Daughter seems like she will actually want to take up rugby refereeing. She's way more interested in them than the players.
The Younger Daughter doesn't really get what's going on yet, but she's sure physical enough to be a good player if she ever wants to be.
Connecticut expanded sports betting. In other news, calls to their gambling addiction helpline went up 96%.
This song was featured in episode 2(?) of cocaine and rhinestones.
Three. And it's a reeeaaalllly rough one.
(I recently started that pod and played one from the first episode a few days ago just in case you've been away.)
Rough doesn’t begin to describe..
I'm wondering how
the organized mob'sMLB's takeover of the baseball card industry affects my interest going forward, tooI had hoped to move my baseball interest out of MLB and into townball, but I haven't been OK with going to games in person lately.
Hopefully this summer is the year I can start that transition.
I figure the WGOM Road Trip to Cooperstown to see Mauer's induction is the only thing left I will actively seek out about MLB
I think that's cool, but I would still miss the roar of the crowd. That kind of energy can be so thrilling. But MLB, please save the canned music and organ for between hitters, make the pitchers work quickly, and just let me talk in peace with my friends in between innings. I know, it doesn't really help to type this out, but it's more or less my confessional booth.
TBH, my interest in baseball has waned over the last 7 or 8 years. The girls, through less free time, and Manfred, through is actions as commissioner, have certainly hastened the process
I'm glad to hear about your interest in town ball. I've found that my interest in baseball has shifted a bit, from involvement with my kids' teams, to playing in the backyard, to our townball team, etc. My interest in baseball overall remains about the same, but I'm probably paying less attention to the MLB product than I used to. Still quite a bit (especially with fantasy baseball), but less than it used to be.
Indeed, that's part of why all the criticism resonates so strongly with me: I love the sport itself, and I wish the owners did too. Instead, it seems to be an absusive relationship.
Mine has, too, in general, but it still interests me when I do get the chance to watch.
I'm in favor of some more radical changes than you are, but I am always thinking about the sustainability of baseball in the end. I want it to be small talk in the summer, I want to enjoy some summer nights at the ballpark with an enthusiastic crowd.
Like I would really love a radical realignment (the end of the AL/NL split, but two leagues of four divisions aligned geographically) with the addition of two teams, so more games can be played in each team's home time zone. Baseball has a lot more entertainment to compete with now, and I think optimizing for good game times is important.
I'm in favor of some sort of pitch clock -- I think hitters can be kept in check by the home plate umpire better than pitchers (because pitchers have the ball and initiate play), and statistically there are massive, massive differences between pitchers in how long they take between pitches. The details might matter, but something to keep the average time between pitches down is absolutely a better experience for fans. I don't think fans today are all that different from fans 70 years ago, but I think 70 years ago there wasn't any thought to the idea of taking longer between pitches giving the pitcher an edge by getting that much more rest between pitches.
I'm in favor of some kind of extra-innings limitation in the regular season. Whether it's through extra baserunners starting in the 11th inning or just ending games with a tie after 12 innings, outside the very diehard fans who are going to love baseball anyway, I don't think the marathon games are a good fan experience, and they aren't good for player health.
All this would make it easier for me to be more engaged with baseball -- shorter games that are shown at convenient times. The revenue sharing situation is still a mess and that hurts nation-wide attention more than it should, too.
One place I think we agree is the value of the regular season. With a 4-division, 2-league setup (imbalanced such that every team plays the same schedule as everyone else within their division, but play within their division more than within their league), I'd have 8 teams make the playoffs -- top two from each division, 1A vs. 2B, 2A vs. 1B, 3A vs. 4B, For a long time when the World Series was the only level of the playoffs, there was 1 playoff team per 8 teams. I think it's alright for there to be 2 playoff teams per 8 teams, in recognition of a playoff calendar that includes a division series and a league series, but more than that does rub me the wrong way. Also, I think it's fair to decide the playoff teams within a division when they've played the same schedule as each other, but since the other division within the league played a different schedule, it's possible the 2nd-best team in a division is the 2nd-best team in the league, so having 1st in a division play 2nd in a different division is a way to settle that on the field. Top 2 in an 8-team division would be difficult to achieve and in general you would have pennant fights going down deep into September.
Anthony Edwards goes off last night (40 points!) and I scope out Canis this morning and the first comment is that he didnt pass enough *face palm*
I didn't get home until just after the game ended. By the highlights, it looked like a pretty great game.
The Wolves were sluggish in the first half but Portland let them hang around and then ANT took over.
ANT eurostepping all over the place looked like fun.
This is where I reiterate that the Euro step is the most aesthetically pleasing move in sports.
I watched. I almost bailed completely as the second quarter fell apart, but the comeback was a joy. The last couple of minutes were draining on my psyche, but I suppose that's what brought me to basketball in the first place.
At halftime, Kevin Lynch was prattling on about how the Wolves offense needed to run through KAT and that they were losing because Ant was scoring too much.
Why do they still employ that guy?
He’s one of us.
Woof. He is so bad.
For some reason I'm stuck on this Ortiz thing. Wanted to look at it a different way. It seems pretty clear his best 10-year period was 2004-2013, when he made the All-Star team every year.
To take position completely out of it, we can look at something like wRC+ -- it's nice because it's on Fangraphs and you can do multi-year custom splits.
So considering everyone in baseball from 2004-2013, Ortiz had the 8th-highest wRC+ with 147 wRC+. Directly ahead of him is Ryan Braun at 148 wRC+ and directly behind him is Lance Berkman at 147 wRC+.
And I think that gets me to the root of the question -- if you are 8th best at your position (hitter) over the best 10-year period of your career, are you really worth a HOF induction? Ryan Braun was just as productive over that time period with 2000 fewer plate appearances.
If you look at career wOBA (a rate statistic) for players with at least 5000 PA, Gary Sheffield (.391) pops up right next to David Ortiz (.392). They were essentially equivalent hitters by rate, Sheffield played more games than Ortiz, and Sheffield had a lot more defensive value as you can tell by comparing their WAR (51.0 for Ortiz to 62.1 for Sheffield). But Sheffield had 12% of the vote on his first ballot and Ortiz got 77% of the vote on his first ballot? Sheffield was even on the same ballot as Ortiz and is only up to 41% of the vote. How can a guy hit just as well as a HOF designated hitter, play three different positions in the field, and be less qualified for the HOF?
Including David Ortiz, the BBWAA has voted just 89 non-pitchers into the HOF. Let's say that's 11 inductees per non-P position. I would assert to be a HOF DH, you should be at least one of the best 33 hitters of all time. Why 33? Pre-DH, an all-bat, no-glove guy would have ended up in LF, RF, or 1B. Historical defensive comparisons are problematic at best, so we don't know which (if any) of those players might have ended up as a DH if a DH rule had existed. By including all of them in the DH comparison, we give DHs the benefit of the doubt that they might have been a better fielder than one of those guys if the DH position hadn't existed during, say, Frank Thomas' career.
Who are the best 33 hitters of all time? Let's rank by wOBA, filtered to at least 7500 PA, which is roughly a 12.5-year career. Also, I'll filter to 1903 and after, since before 1903 in the AL (and 1901 in the NL), foul balls didn't even count as strikes. That's the kind of fundamental rule change that I think is difficult to adjust for.
Top 1-11
.513 -- Ruth
.493 -- Williams
.477 -- Gehrig
.460 -- Foxx
.459 -- Hornsby
.445 -- Cobb
.439 -- DiMaggio
.436 -- Speaker
.435 -- Musial
.430 -- Ott
.428 -- Mantle
I've left off Bonds (.435) because steroids, and to give Ortiz the benefit of the doubt, but ultimately I'm sure Ortiz was using too.
Top 12-22
.427 -- Harry Heilmann
.416 -- Frank Thomas
.412 -- Larry Walker
.411 -- Bob Johnson
.410 -- Al Simmons
.409 -- Eddie Collins
.409 -- Willie Mays
.407 -- Honus Wagner
.406 -- Gentleman Jim Thome
.405 -- Jeff Bagwell
.405 -- Edgar Martinez
Hadn't heard of Heilmann before -- played 1914-1932, was a 1952 BBWAA inductee, mostly 1B/OF.
Bob Johnson is interesting, too. Played 1933-1945, primarily OF. Only 8,047 PA to Ortiz's ~10,000 PA, but his 57.0 fWAR is better than Ortiz's 51.0 fWAR. Johnson's not a BBWAA HOF pick.
Here I've also left off Manny Ramirez (.418) and McGwire (.415) because steroids, again to give Ortiz the benefit of the doubt.
Top 23-33
.405 -- Todd Helton
.405 -- Charlie Gehringer
.404 -- Duke Snider
.404 -- Frank Robinson
.403 -- Paul Waner
.402 -- Goose Goslin
.400 -- Lance Berkman
.400 -- Joey Votto
.399 -- Arky Vaughan
.397 -- Chipper Jones
.395 -- Mike Schmidt
Goslin's mildly interesting -- 64.0 fWAR career as an outfielder. Played 1921-1938, wasn't a BBWAA pick.
Todd Helton's not in the HOF. He was a better hitter than David Ortiz, played in the field (and thus has a better fWAR), and had only 500 PA less than Ortiz.
Arky Vaughan wasn't a BBWAA pick, one of those times the Veteran's committee put in someone who was truly snubbed.
I left off Alex Rodriguez because steroids, again to give Ortiz the benefit of the doubt.
So if we leave off 4 "steroids" guys, Ortiz still isn't in the top 33 hitters since 1903. But he probably used, and should really be compared to all hitters of his era, since we really don't know who did or didn't use steroids, and if we look at 1996-2015, the top hitters with at least 7500 PA by wOBA are:
1 -- .422 -- Manny Ramirez
2 -- .409 -- Gentleman Jim Thome
3 -- .409 -- Albert Pujols
4 -- .405 -- Miguel Cabrera
5 -- .405 -- Todd Helton
6 -- .401 -- Alex Rodriguez
7 -- .400 -- Lance Berkman
8 -- .400 -- Gary Sheffield
9 -- .399 -- Chipper Jones
10 -- .395 -- Jason Giambi
11 -- .394 -- Carlos Delgado
12 -- .390 -- Vladimir Guerrero
13 -- .390 -- David Ortiz
14 -- .387 -- Brian Giles
15 -- .378 -- Bobby Abreu
13th best hitter of his era when you consider all players and all positions? I just am not buying him as a DH selection for the HOF.
But from looking at all this, I would definitely say that Todd Helton, Joey Votto, and Gary Sheffield should all be in the HOF. They did enough just at the plate to warrant inclusion, even from a "small Hall" standpoint where you exclude most of the Veteran's Committee selections. Put Ortiz in the Jim Rice wing.
I’ve got really nothing to add except to say that it’s always a pleasure to read your analysis.
That and there is a lot of juice on the 96/2015 list.
I enjoyed it as well.
My one comment is that the top-heaviness of that list with pre-WWII stars and other stars from before the lowering of the mound makes me think that it is really important to think through why that is and what it should mean for analyzing HOF qualities. Not an endorsement of Big Papi or argument against ubes' analysis at all, btw. Just an observation.
That's true, I was thinking about that a bit myself. I think it would be an improvement both to normalize by the averages for the different eras (which is what typically happens now), but also by the variance around each statistic in each era as well. I am pretty sure that there is just generally more variance in the pre-WWII stats, as baseball didn't pay as well, they were excluding Black ballplayers, and just generally the level of play was lower. If so, normalizing by variance would tend to decrease the normalized values for players of yore.
Thanks.
I’m with meat - really appreciate these ubes.
The CEO if the Red Sox called Ortiz the “most important person” to ever play for the Red Sox. I want to know the criteria for that. They did have a left fielder player in four decades who hit .406 one year and slammed 521 HRs despite missing parts of five seasons fighting in two wars. But sure, Big Papi.
The absolute disrespect.
First off, as I think you would agree--Ted Williams was arguably the best hitter ever, he played a good left field, he won two AL MVPs, and made the all-star team every year except his rookie year and 1952 when he only played 6 games.
Secondly, what about Pedro Martinez? Why on earth would you want to forget about a guy like that? Pedro came to the Red Sox in 1998, and aside from the strike-shortened season in 1995, Boston hadn't even been to the playoffs since 1990. In '98 he absolutely carried that rotation with 233 IP and a 3.40 FIP (non-park-adjusted) in Fenway, and they got back to the playoffs. Second in Cy Young voting. In '99 and '00, he won back-to-back Cy Young Awards. In 2001, he was hurt, but then in '02 and '03 he was absolutely dominant both years, with the best FIP in the league not just averaged over the two seasons, but also individually for each season. For a 6-year stretch, he was the best or second-best pitcher in the AL. Has to be one of the greatest peaks of all time for a starting pitcher. Without him, Boston would have struggled to keep up in the AL East, would have done worse ticket sales, a worse media deal, and would have struggled to both have the money to move to Yankee-level spending, but also to attract free agent talent to stay there.
And then in 2004, Pedro was not as good as Schilling, but still had an excellent season and helped them to their first World Series win. Even if you wanted to focus just on that year, Manny hit better than Ortiz (like he usually does), and did it while hitting behind Ortiz and at least being able to wear a glove in the field.
Ortiz was a great hitter, but my how short people's memories are.
Martínez convinced the front office to sign Ortiz and "convinced" (possibly bullied) Grady Little into giving Ortiz more playing time. It did help Boston's preferred choice, Jeremy Giambi, had a .696 OPS that year.
I didn't know that, but that wouldn't surprise me.
That Yaz guy was a real slacker, too. His career rWAR is only 93.7% the combined total of Ortiz & Jim Rice’s careers.
As I may have mentioned elsewhere, there was this guy named "Ruth" who wore a Red Sox uniform for a while too.
Won some World Championships with them, too! He was a great pitcher, but you know, it's better to trade a guy too soon than too late and sure enough, his pitching career tailed off rapidly.
Heh. Good point.
Marvin Miller's b-ref page is fantastic
Win-Loss record!