Comments on: David Ortiz is having the best season in history by a 35+ year old DH This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mike Felber Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:59:26 +0000 Apropos of what I said just above, that is true if this version of WAR, B-R WAR, is accurate. I am not a reflexive naysayer about WAR due to some imperfections, like many of Dugout Central. But it ems, would be irrational to assume both that any WAR is perfect, or even if it is close, absent closer examination.

And I have not even heard a case made about whether the WAR used here-& it should always be specified which version is being used-is more accurate than other total value systems, such as Fangraphs WAR.

Sluggers whose main value are HRs, many time who K often-their ratings seem at large variance between systems. A Killebrew, or Stargell, likely Big Mac. And defense is another big swing. Let's examine an example of a big middle infielder rating discrepancy.

Lou Whitaker. On this site, just about exactly at 70. I recall somewhat higher than other systems. If we were looking at just total WAR, then even the significantly lower assessment has him as high as you can get amongst unelected men! But it matters how high he is, since sweet Lou was unusually consistent: but another way to put it is he had an unimpressive peak by HOF standards.

And I think most realize that peak value is at least as crucial in evaluating how good a player someone is as total career accomplishments. John Q. averaged best 7 years & career WAR: I might add top 3 years (may not weight it the same). At any rate, we CANNOT just throw around one WAR system as if inviolate, & not even test whether it is close! I mean, sometimes the career WAR swings are on the order of 20%!!

By: Pat Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:23:49 +0000 WAR shows he's a ways off from best ever and I don't see him making up over 1 WAR in only 20 games. So, no, not best ever. 🙂

Also, PI shows Martinez at 5.7 in 2000, not 6.1. Ah, you're looking at oWAR.

By: Scott Ross Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:26:03 +0000 I've never been a fan of "DH-only" lists. Feels like giving a guy a bonus for not playing in the field.

Does anybody ever slag on AL pitchers for not hitting?

By: Mike Felber Thu, 08 Sep 2011 11:18:24 +0000 DavidRF, that list is incomplete. A quick look shows Aaron also qualifying in '73. And though only 390 PA just before the expanded schedule came in, in his last year & at 41, Williams equaled his lifetime OPS + of 190. By the way, I have seen several player's seasons & lifetime OPS + adjusted on this Web Site, marginally, including Williams in the latter 2 examples.

Since this site represents WAR so strongly, a noble effort to figure out total value & has one of the main versions of it here, I will continually advocate for this:

A separate thread that discusses all the reasons for the often large variations in distinct WAR versions, & other total player value systems. Using EXAMPLES of players who vary the most between systems over a career! So we can analyze & attempt to get closer to the truth of what are flaws & advantages in each system. Major & smaller distinct treatments of value re: walks especially, batter Ks, fielding metrics, how positional value is computed, total value of non-offense & base running, how errors & good fielding effect things, especially ERA +...

Is anyone here satisfied that they know just why there are major differences in how good player's are over a career? And does anyone have any idea whether B-R WAR is better than other versions?

Because I honestly have no idea which are closer to the truth, & under what circumstances which systems tend to be better. I would appreciate an open discussion amongst folks who know enough to try & suss out what factors are better or worse in reflecting real value.

By: TheGoof Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:50:22 +0000 He's the only 35-plus guy on the list since the DH itself turned 35.

By: DavidRF Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:10:54 +0000 @40
But he didn't just stand there. His fielding metrics were only negative in 2001. His dWAR was actually positive for the four year period. His fielding didn't really go completely south until his last season.

Interesting question would be how many batters of any position can top OPS+ of 162 at 35+. By my count, that's happened 31 times before.

Barry Bonds (5) 2000-2004
Babe Ruth (4) 1930-33
Ted Williams (4) 1954,1956-58
Hank Aaron (2) 1969,1971
Chipper Jones (2) 2007-2008
Tris Speaker (2) 1923,1925
Ty Cobb (2) 1922,1925
Cap Anson 1888
Bob Johnson 1944
Honus Wagner 1909
Lefty O'Doul 1932
Manny Ramirez 2008
Mark McGwire 1999
Nap Lajoie 1910
Sam Thompson 1895
Stan Musial 1957
Zack Wheat 1924

... of course, Ortiz after yesterday is up to 165 now, but I won't redo my search.

By: Kahuna Tuna Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:43:08 +0000 Worst OPS+ among DH's who qualified for the batting title in their age-35 season or later:

Scott Hatteberg, age 35, 2005 A's: 523 PA, 81 OPS+
Dave Parker, age 40, 1991 Angels (501 PA, 76 OPS+) and Blue Jays (40 PA, 130 OPS+): 541 PA, 81 OPS+

somewhere Kahuna Tuna is snickering as this post does have its sensationalistic elements...

Nahhh. Sensationalistic is "He done — fork stab!" "He might rank in the top five by season's end"? A comment like that is a model of restraint and perspicacity.

By: Doug B Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:08:31 +0000 of course Barry Bonds won 4 straight MVP's while over age 35 essentially playing DH by standing out in left field for 120 games.

By: Doug B Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:06:04 +0000 "By the end of the season, Ortiz might rank in the the top 5 on that WAR list."

Now THERE is a catchy article headline!"

But it's more accurate.


By: Jason Camp Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:56:24 +0000 Fair to bring up steroids with Ortiz. Just like A-Rod and the biggest fraud of them all, Mr. Barry Bonds.