Cooperstown In-Credible on WAR and more

I think that's the best name for the Cooperstown Cred baseball blog.

I'd looked at an occasional post of his before, but gave it my first hard look last month.

That was when I said Danny Murtaugh is WAY OVERDUE to be in as a manager. Two World Series. Had he lived, would have been the 1979 pilot as well. Re Murtaugh? An "interesting" piece here by Cooperstown Cred, who notes Murtaugh's health history and repeated retirements because of it, but does NOT take it into account in touting him. He links to Bill James, who likewise mentioned it but does NOT take it into account. (Bill James was great for giving us sabermetrics, as well as this managerial equivalent of sorts, but he's lousy on following where his own sabermetrics point in many cases. "We" took health into account with Roy Campanella, Sandy Koufax, and Dizzy Dean though not, sadly, Thurman Munson with his premature death. Why not Murtaugh?)

Cooperstown Cred guy doesn't fully understand WAR, IMO, with this observeration on his most recent Albert Pujols piece:

If you believe the calculation, the Angels could have plucked a player from their AAA affiliate in Salt Lake City and the team would have won two more games than they did in reality. I don’t personally believe that.

No, it wouldn't be an ANGELS replacement player, it would be an MLB average replacement player. WAR is compared MLB-wide. As for the realities of what Pujols' stats said? Your "cred" is undercut of you can't accept that. A .672 OPS and severely limited defensive range? If you're talking about "leadership" or "chemistry" or whatever, WAR doesn't account for that for ANY player.

But, it's not just there. He has issues with WAR on his Ichiro Suzuki piece. He also has a poor dichotomy when he said he ran a Twitter poll and the options in Ichiro were "great/unique" HOFer, "borderline" HOFer, or not at all. I commented, why not "solid" HOFer in the middle of the first and second options? (Ichiro would have had 80-85 WAR had he played his whole career in MLB. Among right fielders? That would put him ahead of the likes of Reggie Jackson, but behind Al Kaline and Roberto Clemente, let alone the actually "unique" at right field. It would also put him ahead of Pete Rose.

Dude also thinks Minnie Minoso belongs in the Hall with less than 55 WAR, and right at 50 WAR if we don't count Negro League stats. Which I am dubious about in general, and in his case, given his young age would have had him in MLB minors, even more so. Here's my deeper dive.

I think he also pushes Tony Oliva and Gil Hodges. I now have more detailed looks at the cases against  Oliva and Hodges.

Minoso shows how Chris Bodig, near my age, is clearly a "Big Hall" guy. (He's enough younger than me he should have a better grasp on the realities of WAR.)

Other than triples, he doesn't meet my eye test. (Well, he's got the negative eye tests of "out stealing" league leadership several times, along with poor SB percentage.) He did have one 8-WAR year and was robbed of an MVP. Other than that, though?

He's Hall of Pretty Good, and arguably Hall of Very Good. Not Hall of Fame. His relative lack of power wasn't serving teams well with primarily being played at LF, then 3B. In theory, you put a lower-power person like that in right, but he's below-average in range factor for the few games he did play there. And, that rules out CF.

Where Minoso REALLY belongs is the "Hall of Self-Aggrandizement" for the stunts (they were) of playing one game in 1976 and even worse, the one game in 1980. Of course, Bill Veeck was associated with both. Dunno who owned the ChiSox in 1980. (Oh, it was also a stunt, as I see it, by Nick Altrock, the other five-decade guy.)

Oh, per Chris? Rob Neyer's halfway enlightened about Minoso. "Borderline. At best."

Rob Neyer used to work at Red Satan, of course. And, its past and present baseball writers, with the possible exception of Jeff Passan, whom I haven't seen write about Cooperstown, are to a man, humongous bloated Big Hall guys. Right on cue, and behind the ESPN paywall (a sure sign that it's especially click-baity) Brad Doolittle fellates the case of Minoso.

Sadfly, the "Golden Era" Veterans Committee agrees with Big Hall fellators like Doolittle and odig on Mineso and several other undeserving candidates. I've thoroughly excoriated them.

No, WAR is not perfect, but, in an actually good piece at Red Satan, I quote:

The goal of WAR is to give the most complete sense of a player's value to his team, and it's perhaps the best piece of data to compare the greatness of one player to the next.

There you go. Couldn't have said it better myself. Now, get off my lawn.

Shohei Ohtani, like Mike Trout, still must bow before Walter Johnson

Three years ago David Schoenfield tried to claim that Mike Trout was on track for the best season ever. He was wrong and I thoroughly explained why.

But, Schoenfield has moved on. Now he's hinting that Shohei Ohtani might be among the best, and, once again, from what I can see before I hit the ESPN+ paywall (and dreck like this is why I won't pay) he ignores Walter Johnson's GOAT 1913 season. (To be half fair, in 2018, it wasn't just Schoenfield; it was a whole set of ESPN clusterfuckheads.)

So, no, Schoenfield (and shouldn't you be making sure Bishop Syracuse doesn't play in next year's Little League World Series?) Ohtani's year, while in the 10-WAR range if he finishes out, is NOT Babe Ruth. Or Barry Bonds. Or Mike Trout. 

And certainly not Walter Johnson.

And right now, if he DOES finish out, he may not get 10 WAR.

(Update, Oct. 29. He of course was a fair ways short, at 9.0 WAR. And, he must not only bow to Walter Johnson and the Babe, but just within the modern era, Ohtani must bow to Trout, Bonds and seven other players on the batting side alone who had seasons at least 15 percent better than him.)

Because, contra your claims three years ago, Trout wasn't chasing Ruth. Or any of the others, ultimately. He WAS chasing Johnson.

Also, as for the two-way claims? Well, not totally so fast. In his peak, Johnson appeared as a batter in 55 or so games for several years straight. (That said, most those years, he pitched 48 or more games.) Twice he was over 60 games. In 1914, one year after his peak, he had 160 PAs. In 1918, 167. Rounding up a 0.9 year, he had seven straight years of 1.0 or more WAR at the plate. (Johnson also in 1913 tied his career best in batting with a 109 OPS+.)

And, with that said, let's take selected info from that 2018 piece.

Again, Trout was NOT chasing Ruth, namely Ruth's 1923 season, for the best year in baseball history by WAR.

He was not, unless he was trying for second place.

The best year in MLB history is NOT Babe Ruth's 1923. Not at all.

Not even close.

But, who?

It's Johnson's 1913.

Walter Johnson: The
current WAR GOAT

The Big Train had 15.0 WAR on the mound, compared to Ruth's 14.3 at the plate.

Now, somebody will pop up that single-season WAR numbers can vary half a WAR point, so just maybe Ruth is ahead.

Nope.

Johnson also had 1.4 at the plate for 16.4 WAR total.

Now, ESPN Stats and Info had one of their staff snootily tweet back to me when I tweeted this, that it was about position players only.

Well, Schoenfield never said that. (And, this year, he certainly hasn't. At least, he didn't before I hit the paywall screen.)

This dude said "it was implied."

I said "oh really"?

He then said that WAR favored pitchers, especially in the dead ball era.

First, as I've blogged before,1913 was semi-live ball, not totally dead. About all rules had been standardized, homers were up a tick, doubles up two or three ticks, etc.

Second, if you throw out pre-1920 years, as I then told this guy, half of the top WAR years were by batters anyway. (I took top 50 and threw out from there.) One third of post-1910 were, and almost all of the 1910-20 years that stay are Johnson's. Take top 50 and ties I then said "bye!"

Let's look at live ball and semi-live ball pitchers — post-1910, in my take — who are at least in the ballpark of the Babe's year. We'll use 12 WAR, rounded, as the cutoff. That gets us within 20 percent of Ruth, even if well below the Big Train.

Johnson, again, 14.8 in 1912
Dwight Gooden, 13.3 WAR (an under-21 record) in his phenomenal 1985
Pete Alexander, 12.7 in 1920
Walter (Guess Who) Johnson, 12.7 in 1914, part of a phenomenal three-year stretch.
Steve Carlton, 12.5 in 1972
You know Who, 12.5 in 1915, part of a phenomenal four-year stretch
Ed Walsh, 12.2, 1912
Roger Clemens, 12.1, 1997* for you know what.
Hal Newhouser, 12.1, 1945
Bob Gibson, 11.9, 1968
Old Pete, 11.9, 1916
Ferguson Jenkins, 11.9, 1971

Given that Doc Gooden is the only player in the top 20 from the modern era, and Lefty Carlton is the only other modern era player in the top 30, for single-season WAR, per B-Ref, that's how dumb a fuq Schoenfield is. (Carl Yastrzemski, 12.4 WAR in his 1967 Triple Crown year, is the only batter from semi-live ball or full live ball besides Ruth in the top 35, and he's the ONLY modern era player in the top 45. Yep. Ahead of Bonds. Or Trout. THAT is how Dum a Fuq Schonefield is.)

But, back to the first point. Ohtani has yet to make it to 10 WAR. Just cool your jets on how special this is. Right now, with an OPS+ over 150, he's a great batter, sure. Ditto with his ERA+ being over 150. Problem? He's only pitched a skoosh over 100 innings. Not likely to make more than 125. Even in today's baseball world, that's way low.

And, this is just one season. (And, update Sept. 16, if he's possibly going to be shut down for the year on the mound side, it's not even a full season.)

 

Update: Per a comment by Dave below, when comparing Ohtani with Ruth's two-way years, or with the number of at-bats plus innings played as a pitcher for Johnson, let's not forget that Ohtani DH's as an offensive player. He's not playing a fielding position and therefore doesn't have to throw the ball anywhere.

Rick Carlisle, the Mavs, Porzingis, 3-balling and potential

ESPN's Seth Greenberg said recently he believes they can. I am inclined to doubt it after the Dwight Powell injury. Willie Cauley-Stein is a "nice" addition, and that's that, and I addressed that more at this piece about Powell's injury.

Beyond working around that — and for the team's longer-term future — they have to address other issues. Well, no, one big issue, AND how that issue is being coached.

Luka Dončić and Kristaps Porziņģis must learn to play together more and a certain head coach, Rick Carlisle, learn the best way to make that happen.

Part of this is the Unicorn still knocking bits of rust off plus adjusting to a new team. I know that without anybody at Red Satan telling me. But, he shot much better during Luka’s recent ankle-sprain absence.

Spacing is surely part of the issue.  But shot selection is too. Let's look at that in detail.

Contra Carlisle, a post-up is NOT a bad shot in today’s NBA. Shot charts tell us that the effective field goal percentage is best for inside 15 feet and outside the 3-ball line. Inside 15 feet is three things: dunks, layups and putbacks, and post-ups. So, the Zinger shooting an 18-19 foot midrange? No. The Zinger (with his slightly greater bulk this year) putting his butt on the blocks more? Yes. From there, with his height and court sense, learning to pass more, and better, out of double-teams should flow next. This is particularly true for times when Luka is not on the floor with him and he faces lots of doubles.

I mean, his eFG is below 50 percent. Not acceptable. Only player on the team below that mark. Zinger himself has said he's uncomfortable shooting that many 3s.

That said, this is part of what the Mavs got with him. He's never been above 50 percent on 2-point shooting. And, as cackling Knicks fans pointed out a week ago after getting the season sweep against the Mavs, right now, he's down to 40 percent. And somebody needs to fix that. I know that his high center of gravity and relatively slender build, even with some bulking, means he'll never be a Shaq, referring to one big man who, along with Round Mound Barkley and Chris Webber, has criticized him for not posting up more. And their criticisms come from a legit place; both led the league multiple time not only in 2-point FG percentage but also overall eFG. But, look at how well Tim Duncan played in the post without being that bulky.

And, Timmy had plenty of 3-ballers surrounding him. Manu, Danny Green, and Kawhi come immediately to mind. And Duncan normally shot 50 percent or better on 2's.

I think it's a reasonable goal for Carlisle to get the Zinger to be shooting twice as many shots from inside 15 feet by the end of next year as he is now, and to have a .525 2-point shooting percentage.

That said, drawing double-teams in post-ups would also require the Unicorn to become a better passer than he is now. Zach Lowe recently lamented his lack of skill there. Sounds like another Carlisle project for the next offseason. (Another way of phrasing this is that his assist percentage rate is half of Duncan's.)

And don't even get me started with Embiid, as Lowe's Red Satan cohorts Goldsberry and MacMullan try to do. And the idea that Embiid automatically drives every time his man tried to come too close to him? That's simple. A wing (or two) collapses and strips the ball from him. Embiid is NOT Nikola Jokić.

I have ZERO desire to see the Unicorn trying to imagine himself as a new Ralph Sampson, point forward. And, if Brett Brown had a brain in Philly, he would have the same worries about Embiid. Besides, you still can't get Ben Simmons, an actual, nominal guard, to shoot the 3-ball as much as you like, Brett.

Part of the Zinger's discomfort comes from an observation he made. Nobody expected, when they traded for Porziņģis that Luka would take off like this in his second season. It's Luka's team now.

But, at some point, Lowe and Carlisle need to challenge the Zinger to truly be the Unicorn, not an over-height 3-and-D guy.

Tim McMahon says the Mavs are atop the league in offensive efficiency. Doesn't mean they can't be better, does it? And, reality is that they're 10th in 3-ball percentage, among team stats. (They are fourth in 2-point percentage.)

Also, if you ARE going to be a coach asking a big man to shoot more 3-ball, why aren't you teaching them how to shoot more corner 3s, like the stereotypical "stretch 4"? Again, that's on Carlisle with the Zinger and Brett Brown with Embiid.

There's another advantage to pushing corner 3s out of your big men, rather than wing 3s or ones from up top, if you're the coach. Having the baseline on one side will constrain dribble penetration thoughts by big men on a corner 3 if they they think about pump-faking then driving. A one- or two-step drive might be acceptable. But after traffic will close in on you and pin you on the baseline.

In turn, that will force big men to either pop and shoot or pass back out, and to do either one quickly.

There you go, Carlisle. Your work is cut out for you.

==

And, just as I say this, Red Satan has a new piece on how Pops has finally gotten LaMarcus Aldridge to shoot the 3-ball —and he's being successful!

On the third hand, per eFG, and even more, per FT percentage, LA has long been a decent shooter.

Joe Posnanski lets Bill James pee on #sabermetrics like a crotchety old man

Joe Posnanski pretending
to do actual journalism.

I've never been a huge fan of Joe Posnanski, and I don't get sports buffs who are.

And, that's before he did his puff piece bio of Joe Paterno, which he refused to change to discuss anything about the Penn State sex abuse scandal centered on Larry Sandusky, and what Paterno might have known about it.

Frankly, I think Posnanski did that for two reasons.

One is that he had JoePa on that much of a pedestal and couldn't stand to see his idol destroyed.

The other?

$$$.

Pos wasn't about to shoot his own gravy train in the foot.

Well, as noted, he wasn't on a pedestal for me even before that. He was decent, above average ... generally good on baseball. I'm not a college football fan in any great degree, so don't care about him there. He's not good on golf, the few ventures he's made there.

Anyway, he tumbled after JoePa, and has never recovered, in my book.

And now, worse.

He's given Bill James a forum to take a whack, a cheap whack, at Wins Above Replacement.

No, WAR is not a perfect baseball metric. But, per this great rebuttal on Tom Tango, it's not a bad one, and it's no different from James' own Win Shares.

So, Pos let James set up a straw man or piñata and whack away at it for free. He never pointed out that it was a straw man.

Nor did he ask James, if he is that stats-o-phobic:
1. How the hell did James claim to have any credibility on WAR?
2. Why did he get into sabermetrics in the first place?

Instead, Pos runs some generic "bullshit" angle through the story, about James being a great bullshit detector. Well, either Pos isn't one himself (we know that with the JoePa bio, don't we), or he's got no problem being an active enabler of bullshit (we know that from the JoePa bio, don't we).

And, no wonder Pos is giving James free space to swing at straw men.

Per a link someone posted at Craig's NBC blog, James feels exactly the same way about Paterno as Pos does.

And, we all know what Pos can stand for.

Even worse, per my comment about Pos' bio, above, Pos didn't ask James the most basic question of all.

Is this about the $$$?

And, don't give me that bullshit, speaking of bullshit, about how James started doing this while working night security at a factory.

That was 30 years ago or more, when he wasn't thinking about $$$.

#Fail. By both of them.

And, we all know what Pos can stand for. Spell out the initials yourself.

Lou Brock stole the record book 40 years ago today

St. Louis Cardinals' Lou Brock slides under the tag of Philadelphia Phillies'
Larry Bowa to set a new stolen base record of 105 stolen bases in a season
in the seventh inning of game, Sept. 10, 1974. Phillies' Dave Cash
backs up Bowa on the throw from catcher Bob Boone. (Dick Ruthven
was the pitcher, and on the 104th, too.) UPI photo/Post-Dispatch

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a nice story on what happened on, and leading up to, Sept. 10, 1974.

If you're not a baseball fan, let alone a Cardinals fan, that was the day that Lou Brock passed Maury Wills for the single-season stolen base record.

And, although it would be three more years before he passed Ty Cobb for the modern career stolen base record, and not until a year later that he would pass Sliding Billy Hamilton and wipe out his old-rules (going from first to third on a single gave you a stolen base) record, nonetheless, by the end of his 1974 season, with 753 total swipes, and the 118 on the year, Brock showed he had a shot at Cobb, and even the asterisked record of Hamilton.

That said, according to Brock, it wasn't his idea:

“I was pushed into it,” he said. “I mean in 1974, I’m 35 years old and I could care less about breaking a record. But that was the same year Hank Aaron broke the Babe’s record in April, and right after I got a call. I had a conversation with the National League office, and they said, ‘We need some more commotion in the league, therefore we’re going to promote you.’ 

“And I said, ‘You got the wrong guy.’ ” 

Didn’t matter. In its communications with media, the league pushed the idea that Brock was pursuing Wills. When Brock stole 28 consecutive bases early in the season, it fueled the fire. Had there been cable television, computers and smart phones, Brock would have been everywhere. He would have been an app.

There you go. 

While it's fashionable today to disparage Brock for having one of the lowest career WARs of a modern, writer-admitted Hall of Famer, that's not all the story.

Beyond that, Brock deserves entry as a "pioneer" of sorts. While Wills first really brought the stolen base back to prominence in 1962, Brock almost stole the Cards into the playoffs on a team whose overall player skill level didn't match up to the 1962 Dodgers. And, as some of the lower scoring of the 1960s carried over into the 1970s and even the 1980s, in larger, low-power stadiums, he opened the world to a new concept, which reached its apex in the "Whiteball" of the 1980s Whitey Herzog-managed Cardinals.

Vince Coleman, Ozzie Smith, Willie Wilson, somewhat Willie McGee and others owe part of their prominence to that.

At the same time, Whiteyball was about more than just stolen bases, or about raw speed. Had Whitey been managing in the 1970s, he might have done a bet/payout with Brock like he did with the Wiz — paying out money for grounders and charging it for fly balls. Brock didn't have quite Rickey Henderson's power, and certainly not his patience and walk rate. Whiteyball was, pre-sabermetrics, also about on-base percentage, total running skills, and team defense.

Brock and his Brockabrella. St. Louis Post-Dispatch

So, it's somewhat fair to criticize Brock for not having all of that, but, at the same time, he's a legit HOFer. And, per the photo at left, an inventor, too, with the Brockabrella!

And, as people bitch about low offense today, maybe Whiteyball, not just young Billy Hamilton stealing, needs to make a comeback.

==

There's another historic tie. Just as Hank Aaron faced racists when he passed Babe Ruth in 1974, the story reminds us that Brock faced the same when he passed Cobb.

A #sabermetrics #WAR need: Managerial Wins Above Replacement (updated)

If you're like me, especially at times like Hall of Fame candidate discussion, besides wanting steroid honesty from folks like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, you also visit a great Internet resource, Baseball-Reference, to refute folks like Tiger homers who continue to argue for the Hall of Fame candidacy of the likes of Jack Morris.

Also, this time of year, you scour its pages during winter meetings to wonder about free agent signings. (And, no, the Cards did not overpay for LOOGY Randy Choate — as long as Mike Matheny remembers he's a LOOGY!)

Anyway, thinking back a month or so, when the San Francisco Giants won their second World Series in three years, all of a sudden, everybody was talking about Bruce Bochy as a possible managerial Hall of Famer. (We know Big Head Bochy wasn't that, as a catcher, per his player stats!)

Problem is, as you look at B-R's managers' home page, and compare it to the player pages of any of those players mentioned above, there's something missing from managerial records.

Wins Above Replacement.

Indeed, it is Bochy that has brought this issue to the forefront — one pennant, but a sub-500 record, with the Padres, and two World Series, but a regular season record just above .500, with the Giants.

So, instead of saying, "Bochy's a good managerial handler of pitchers as a former catcher," or, "Bochy's a good dugout manager," but have zero evidence to back that up, wouldn't it be nice to say, "Bochy was worth three wins more than a replacement-level manager" or similar?

OR, a la Jack Morris, it would be nice to have some such stat and instead say, "oh, Bochy just got lucky with expanded playoffs," or similar?

Again, I'm not sure how managerial WAR could be calculated. But we need it! Not every manager is a slam-dunk HOFer like a Tony La Russa or Joe Torre. (Oh, and B-R, while you're at it? Can't you set up the RSS feed for us linking to managerial as well as player pages? Rather, to be more honest, "won't you"?)

Update, Feb. 20, 2013: A friend of mine, with whom I discuss real and fantasy baseball a lot, has this great idea, on the calculations.

Teams get evaluated all the time on how much they exceed, or underperform, their Pythagorean win factor assessments. And, here's information on Wiki on Pythagorean win calculations.

Surely, part of that over- or under-performance is attributable to the manager, isn't it? We may have a good starting point right there.

Update, March 28, 2014: Another blogger has picked up the ball, looking at the last 10 years of managers. No surprise that La Russa ranks high, as do Bobby Cox and Jim Leyland, though I am surprised about Ron Washington and Don Mattingly. Bochy's neither in the top nor the bottom.

Update, May 13, 2014: Russell Carleton offers more thoughts on trying to evaluate managers, with some specific numbers, at Baseball Prospectus.

And, a friend of mine beat me to the punch on Pythagoreans vs. reality, not only for the Cards' Sub-Genius Skipper but several others. I did Joe Girardi, the rest are his, then decided to look up Torre for his Yankee years only, and La Russa, Cardinal years only:

Matheny has failed to exceed his team's Pythagorean in his first two years by a relatively large margin. Although they won 97 games last year so I'm not crying for you.

Terry Francona
Phillies - 2 of 4 years (exceeding pythagorean)
Red Sox - 8 of 13 years
Indians - 1 of 1 year
Total: 11 of 18 years exceeding.

Mike Scioscia
Angels - 10 of 15 years

Buck Showalter
Yankees - 3 of 4 years
Diamondbacks - 1 of 3 years
Rangers - 2 of 4 years
Orioles - 3 of 4 years
Total: 9 of 15 years
(Of course, three of those teams went to the World Series in short order after he left ... so I'm sure the Orioles can't wait to fire him)

Joe Girardi
Marlins - 0 of 1 years
Yankees - 4 of 7 (incl. one tie as a "not exceeding")

Bruce Bochy
Padres - 8 of 12 years
Giants - 5 of 7
Total: 13 of 19 years

Ned Yost
Brewers - 3 of 6 years
Royals - 0 of 4 years
Total: 3 of 10 years

Doug Melvin
Arizona - 2 of 5 years
Seattle - 0 of 2 years
Oakland - 1 of 2 years

Joe Torre
Yankees - 10 of 12 years (really)

Tony La Russa
Cardinals - 7 of 16 years (incl. two ties)
On Tony the Pony, as a Cardinals fan, I went the next step and totaled how many wins he was above or below each year. He was a total of plus-5. He was a plus-5 in 2004 and a big plus-7 in 2007. He was a minus-6 in 1997, and a minus-5 in 2011.

It confirms the generally good impression of Franconia. On Scioscia, even though he's only won one title, I had no idea he was that good in general. Buck? No real surprise; of course, he normally hits a burnout plateau, and then another manager takes a team to the next level. Bochy? Like Scioscia, a surprise. Yost not as bad in Milwaukee as painted.

#Sabermetrics: The Pujols advantage over other big boppers at first base

When Miguel Cabrera signed his big new contract with Detroit earlier this year, the response of this blogger and many pro sports writers was: Too long. Specifically, we generally cited the similar contract of Albert Pujols.

There's two other first basemen of roughly the same age to throw into this mix. That's Prince Fielder, traded from Detroit to Texas to let Miggy move from third to first, and Ryan Howard.

But, there's one difference between them.

Pujols is a plus fielder at first; none of the others are. In fact, none of them are close.

A friend of mine scoffed when I called Pujols a plus fielder, but the record doesn't lie. First, there's the two Gold Gloves — and four Fielding Bible awards. But, let's move beyond that into sabermetrics, since FB uses them much more than GG traditionally has.

The basics? Prince Albert has a career total (which includes a few OF and 3B games) of 134 fielding runs. And he has a career positive of 1.9 dWAR. 

For reference, the fielding and mustache god of modern first basemen, Keith Hernandez, has only, yes, only, 117 fielding runs and 0.6 career dWAR.

Now, to the others.

Howard's long been regarded as a statue, and stats don't lie. He weighs in with -46 fielding runs and -12.4 dWAR for his career.

Fielder? A couple of years ago, a lot of allegedly sabermetrically informed writers and bloggers talked about when he'd lose his range at first. I got news for you all — he never had it. At -93 fielding runs and -17.8 dWAR, he's worse than Howard. He's had a slightly longer career, but not that much longer. In other words, on average, each has cost his team a little more than a full point of dWAR, and around 7-10 fielding runs, per year.

Miggy, actually, comes off as relatively not so bad. At -77 fielding runs and -12.0 dWAR, in a career longer than Fielder's, let alone Howard's, and noting that most of this was at third not first, perhaps some of us have been a bit hard on him? 

Actually, no. His first couple of years at 3B in Miami weren't too bad, but he soon looked like crap. Detroit, let us not forget, quickly moved him to first after trading for him, before getting the even more immobile Fielder.

(All Baseball-Reference stats are for all positions for those playing multiple spots.)

Just to dip to Fangraphs, on a cross check, on total zone runs and ultimate zone rating per 150 defensive games.
Hernandez: 121/(no UZR)
Pujols: 96/6.2
Cabrera: -7/-2.0
Fielder: -38/-5.5
Howard: 14/-3.4 (really)
All Fangraphs numbers are for first base only. 

I did not include Joey Votto in any comparisons, for two reasons.

First, he's got an even shorter MLB career to date. Second, he doesn't have the "statue" reputation.

Sidebar: this shows that "we" still have a ways to go in advanced defensive metrics. While Baseball-Reference is my go-to for stats, and I generally rate it over Fangraphs, Fangraphs has its value. This isn't the first time the two have differed a lot on defensive issues. I don't really believe Fangraphs on Howard; on the other hand, I don't totally believe B-R that Pujols is in the same league as Hernandez. On the third hand, B-R's advanced fielding says that Prince Albert has just six fewer ground ball double plays initiated than does the Merry Mex. For comparison, Howard has about 80 fewer and Fielder about 75 fewer, so, maybe B-R shouldn't be doubted quite so much as I think.

Anyway, given all that I wrote above, on fielding, it makes me wonder if Prince Albert hasn't even been underappreciated in some way.

Anyway, moving on ...

Future realities?

Cabrera could go to DH as early as next year, if the Tigers don't resign Victor Martinez, or land another DH-first person. That, in turn probably depends on other things, starting with whether or not they resign Max Scherzer.

Fielder? Mitch Moreland's at DH now, and hits arbitration next year. He could be traded, or not. Why he's not the primary 1B in Arlington now, I have no idea other than two words: "Ron Washington." Of course, we know what he thinks about sabermetrics.

Howard? He should be traded to an AL team, but no trades out of Philly (sorry, Cliff Lee) are happening until Ruben Amaro is finally fired. That said, given that Howard refuses to adjust a lot, he's not that good of trade bait, except to AL teams with a short right field. Calling the Steinbrenner brothers!

Pujols? He's still a plus fielder. He's said he'll take a day here and there of being "spotted" at DH, but, as long as he's an even fielder, as well as a plus fielder (he started a 3-6-3 double play recently) why would you do anything but keep him at first? This is also part of why on overall WAR, and even more WAA, he's a cut above Cabrera and at least that much above the others.

It's also an advantage to the team. If you have someone who's still bringing this level of power and who can at the same time make a positive contribution with the glove or, at minimum, even a few years down the road, not make a negative one, it gives you more lineup flexibility.

Speaking of adjustments, most of Pujols' early home runs have been on high strikes. Whether he's guessing well, has lost a few pounds (it looks possible), has gone to a lighter bat, or is quicker on turning on the ball without the fasciitis, or some combination of the above, I don't know. But something's happened.

This all also shows that, even if Pujols' contract still turns out to be a long-term overpay, and even if 1B is not a defense-first position, it's still going to be much less of an overpay than Cabrera's new one, or even Fielder's current one, in all likelihood; that said, Fielder being younger helps a bit. Howard? We already know the truth about his albatross; the Phillies are just lucky on its shorter length.

And, let's not forget that, with passing the 500-HR mark, he's probably more likely to pass 600 than most the others on this list are to pass 500. 

===

Welcome, visitors from Fangraphs and elsewhere. See some of my other recent baseball blogging, including my touting of a new Kozma Line as a sabermetric replacement for the old Mendoza line and, with the century mark at Wrigley, my take on Babe Ruth's called shot.

Can Billy Hamilton break the Pete Kozma Line?

For years and years, baseball aficionados have talked about the "Mendoza Line," named after baseballer Mario Mendoza and his struggles to bat more than .200 for several different years in his career.

Well, there are variations on that.

We could talk about the Adam Dunn Line. That's an even tougher one to achieve, but Dunn's done it twice. It's not a line, really, but for the sake of parallels, we'll call it that. It's when your strikeouts are higher than your batting average. And Dunn's done it in both 2011 and 2012.

Now, though, I think we have a new example, especially since the Cardinals have officially sent hitless wonder backup shortstop Pete Kozma down to Memphis. Kozma's future was iffy ever since the Cards signed Jhonny Peralta in the offseason. It was more iffy yet after the Birds also signed Mark Ellis. The expectation that Kolten Wong would make the squad on opening day meant Kozma was on borrowed time, and only Ellis' knee tendonitis kept that send-down from immediately happening. Since he's SS only, unlike Daniel Descalso, who plays multiple positions, this was a no-brainer. Add in that Descalso's a touch better hitter, and you go from there. But, let's not totally cast Kozma into oblivion. Let's immortalize him.

Kozma's plate struggles, especially when his glove was brought into question by a World Series error, got plenty of finger-pointing last year at the Birds coming up two games short of topping the Red Sox for title No. 12.

Now, though, we have somebody about whom we can have discussion of a Pete Kozma line with some sabermetrics. Rather than a .200 batting average, we can call a .600 OPS the Kozma line. (Mendoza also fell short of a .600 OPS more than once, but, he's got one line named after him already.)

And, Cincinnati speedster Billy Hamilton, despite a surge that's raised [sic] his batting average to .170, is still more some 150 points short of the Kozma Line. 

With Kozma, there's further complications. Like Mendoza, his K/BB rate is horrible, although Kozma at least isn't 4-1. Descalso is bad enough on that, but not quite as bad as Kozma; another reason he gets to stay in St. Louis.

Meanwhile, back to the object of Cincinnati's unnatural affections. Hamilton has a K/BB rate even worse than Kozma's. And, he's actually below league average on range factor in the outfield. 

Anyway, now that Kozma's been sent down, what are the chances of Striking Out Billy (he's not going to be a new Sliding Billy Hamiliton if he ain't on base) joining him if he doesn't improve? As usual with such things, there's a poll at right, below the two political-based ones.

I don't know who the Reds have at AAA, but if  he can't bat any better, and he's no better than league average on patrolling center field, and with a below-average arm, he's a detriment. Hell, the 1980s Cards were able to stash Vince Coleman in left, at least.

Yeah, part of it is small sample size. OTOH, he had these same issues in the minors.

That said, so did Kozma. Some Cards fans prematurely fell in love with him due to small sample size in 2012.

Dunn also failed to break the Kozma Line in 2011. I'm unaware of any other non-middle infielder who has this ignominious honor, at least in recent years.  

Update, May 5: Hamilton may have Kozma-ed himself and could be headed to the DL.

Is there some foul substance in the St. Louis #Cardinals drinking water?

First, as I blogged last week, Bernie Miklasz mailed in his worst column ever at the Post-Dispatch, pleading at the point of tears for Ozzie Smith and Tony La Russa to make up, because that's "the Cardinal Way"! St. Stan Musial was even evoked. That was before Bernie doubled down on this idiocy in a new column, primarily about other issues, but in reality a pathetic attempt to justify the idea that Royce Clayton was actually the better player that year.

Next, La Russa shows why it was time for him to have retired. He claims that sabermetrics is why Jeff Bagwell is not in Cooperstown, a claim quickly demolished here.

Worse yet, TLR thinks Jack Morris is a Hall of Famer.

Good.Effing.Doorknob.

At one time, I thought he was decent as a strategy manager, but great as an evaluator and developer of talent, and might make a very good GM. Now, I hope no team is dumb enough to make that move, or a grade higher, as president/vice president of baseball operations, unless you want your team overpaying for Jack Morris types.

Finally, Joe Strauss, perhaps worried that Bernie might hog his teh stupidz limelight, boo-hoos for Lance Lynn, claiming that sabermetrics hurt his cause too. Uhh, Joe? No, good old fashioned split stats show that he runs out of gas after Aug. 1. Sabermetrics just reinforce that.

Sabermetrics in the common thread. Miklasz is either misreading or cherry-picking, while Strauss and La Russa are clueless.

So, Ozzie? Not only don't kiss and make up, but don't drink from the same water cooler!

And, is it any wonder that Lee Enterprises, the parent company of the Post-Dispatch, was almost delisted from the NYSE a couple of years back because it was in penny stock territory? Strauss is horrible, Miklasz is becoming more miss than hit, and Rick Hummel needs to retire as a beat writer.

#Cooperstown candidacies: My summation of baseball Hall of Fame 2013 odds, merits

My general questions about potential baseball Hall of Fame candidates are along these lines:

1. Should he get in this year? 2. Should he get in at all? 3. Will he get in this year? 4. Will he get in at all? Following are players, linked to Baseball-Reference pages, then linked to my blog observations. 

Jack Morris: He's not close to deserving. No, No, probably not and maybe next year or via veterans vote.

Dale Murphy. Nice guy, but just no. No to all four questions.

Jeff Bagwell: Why, why is he still waiting? He shouldn't be. Yes, yes, maybe, and yes.

Lee Smith: Closers are generally overrated, including Lee. No, no, no, probably not.

Alan Trammell: Let's get him out from Ripken's shadow and get him in. Yes, yes, no, possibly.

Craig Biggio: Non-roiding "message man" has good shot this year. Yes, yes, probably, yes.

Tim Raines: Can he step out from Rickey Henderson's shadow? Yes, yes, probably no, and very  probably yes.

Kenny Lofton: Should a "junior Tim Raines" be in? No, lean no for now, no, probably not.

Edgar Martinez: Sorry, but he didn't do enough for me as a DH. No, no, no, probably.

Larry Walker: Sorry, fellow Cards fans, but injuries and what I see as a real Coors Field effect say no. No, no, no, probably not.

Fred McGriff: The Crime Dog falls short, and a fair degree, in my book. No, he shouldn't get in this year, or future years. And, he won't, on either.

Curt Schilling: He had an impressive peak, but, injuries aside, why was that peak so late? And are his counting stats too low? His sabermetric stats parallel Bagwell, but ... Kind of lean no on No. 1, I am pretty sure yes on No. 2, no, yes.

Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, et al. Here's my thoughts on likely roiders. Especially re the first two, no, no until individuals, union and Selig (and a few older writers) all apologize, no, and yes. 

And, yes, I know the Hall has morals problems already. I know that players used greenies back in the golden days of baseball. Etc., etc. I have written about that here; shorter thoughts are that this is about playing skills boosts and that I don't believe 1960s amphetamines delivered like that.

Mike Piazza: Besides "bacne," is catcher durability the biggest PEDs allegation shadow for him? See above on Clemens/Bonds.

If I had an actual vote this year, then, it would be Bagwell, Biggio, Raines, Trammell and maybe Schilling.

Your thoughts? Please vote in the poll!  

And, how will my predictions, and desires, square with BBWAA writers? Those who have released their votes to the public, as of last week, may be giving hope to Biggio and Bagwell, and also to me on wanting to keep Morris out.

And, why can't writers get one anti-vote, to vote one person OUT of the Hall? 

I am a "small Hall" guy. Contra Morris and Murphy fans who point to, say, Early Wynn or Jim Rice, respectively, there's plenty of people we should vote back OUT of Cooperstown. Here's some pitchers, and some batters, looking just at the modern baseball era, who need the boot.

And, until the BBWAA, the Hall of Fame itself, and, per my comments above, individual players facing allegations, the players union, and Bud Selig and owners all jointly get honest about roiding, voters are going to face a growing backlog of talented players in years ahead.

Oh, and the Veterans Committee will consider, among others, Tony La Russa and Joe Torre as managers.

Soon, I'll have an initial preview post about that 2014 ballot ... including those two managers.

Let's just say that, although I'm a St. Louis Cardinals fan, TLR managed, pre-St. Louis, the two most notorious early roiders in baseball. And, yes, Tony the Pony, you've got a law degree, but both of them have fessed up. No "alleged" needed.

Stay tuned.

Even baseball sabermetric stat geeks get it wrong at times

Here's a great blog post at Baseball-Prospectus - would you first take George Brett, Ken Griffey Jr. or Reggie Jackson?

Jackson has the best OPS+ of the three, actually, even with his lower BA; Brett and Jr. tie for second.

That said, I love all the people touting Griffey for his D.

He actually has a career negative rating on both fielding runs and defensive WAR:

His last positive year was in 2000, at age 30, the year after his last Gold Glove (in which he had horribly bad numbers, actually).

Hell, on just the offensive side, Sheffield ranks as well as Junior.

Now, is he still a first-round HOFer? Sure. But, let's not quite tout him as one of the greatest half-dozen outfielders of all time. Top 20? Quite possibly. No higher than that, though. (Reggie also has more stolen bases than Junior, as well as the higher OPS+, among other food for thought.)

Was Lincecum really better than Halliday in NLDS?

Baseball stats "guru" Bill James (scare quotes on purpose) claims that Tim Lincecum's 14K NLDS performance against the Braves was better than Roy Halladay's no-no against the Reds. And, as in this mano-a-mano story from ESPN, it's repeated ad nauseum.

But, Herr James overlooks that Braves vs. Reds, in the two hurlers' opponents, is a no comparison as far as bats the two faced. And that's why Halladay's night was better.

One other thing that James and those overly wedded to current sabermetrics miss. Hits, even if partially dependent on fielding, aren't 100 percent dependent, like they claim. At the same time, especially given a man in blue like Hunter Wendelstedt, walks are at least as much outside a pitcher's control today as are hits.