Yes, this is all correct. And you obviously cannot credit Ortiz any actual WAR for these reasons. That’s why it is an incomplete accounting of his value to the team. In the 2004 World Series year, the Red Sox had Kevin Millar at 1B. He was…not good defensively. I think we can all agree Ortiz would have been worse. So which pair offers more value to the 2004 Red Sox: David Ortiz (1B) & Kevin Millar (DH), or David Ortiz (DH) & Kevin Millar (1B)? Again, David Ortiz is a clear Hall of Famer (IMO), and A-Rod was, as I mentioned, head and shoulders better than him. But, using only WAR to compare them is an incomplete assessment. I don’t see that as a controversial statement.
How much credit should we give David for not pitching?
It’s a familiar theme. A big smile, a hearty laugh and oodles of personal charisma = zero accountability. Ortiz should go into politics.
As much as it takes to get Bucket-head, Corky, Slappy, and the Bat-hurler inducted.
That’s a fair question. So do you consider WAR to be an accurate representation of a player’s full value to their team?
There are a variety of inaccuracies with any version of WAR. Giving people credit for things they didn’t do isn’t one of them, though.
Assuming Ortiz was really that bad at first, of course the latter. But that is already reflected in their statistics, including WAR. Were the Red Sox to have switched them, and in fact it was a measurable defensive downgrade, they would have less WAR between them and most of the drop would be attributed to Ortiz. By playing DH most of the time (Ortiz did play 31 games at first in 2004) Ortiz’s numbers derive the benefit of not being penalized for poor defensive play, while Millar gets a little bit of credit for being a competent defensive player (at least according the B-Ref; Fangraphs thinks he was worse than Ortiz was when Ortiz was in the field. I think Fangraphs is often out to lunch.)
I think it is deserved, but I’m actually excited about the steroid enhanced players who were NOT voted in! Barry Bonds, “Chemical Man”, will have to be voted in by the veterans’ committee because he has exhausted his regular chances.
Personally, I think the weird eligibility requirements and limits are the most bizarre thing in the whole business. Someone’s worth may be tarnished or otherwise undervalued by things they did in their last season or two, or even after playing, that causes the sportswriters to be soured on that person when voting time rolls around after five years. But in fifteen? Things may be different, but that person would be SOL.
The entire system, including the various “Committees,” is just so flawed I don’t even know where to start except to start over.
Put in Keith!
WAR is a as good a measure of value as we have, but it is far from perfect. Especially as a defensive measurement. I think WAR vastly overstates both the positive value of a good defender and the negative value of a bad one.
I don’t think this is true. For instance, Ortiz’s career dWAR, according to bbref, is -20.9. In 2016, his final season, a season in which he played 5 innings at first base, his dWAR was -1.2. There’s absolutely no possible way for that to be accurate unless he’s being penalized as a DH.
Interesting. According to this page, it appears players are given an adjustment based on position. DHs are given -15 runs per 1350 innings, which is applied to their defensive WAR.
That’s an adjustment that is made specifically so that you’re able to compare replacement value for a position where defense is important to replacement level for a position where defense is very not important, though.
It is still true that Ortiz is not being punished for being particularly bad at defense. He’s being treated like a league average defensive DH, which is to say, the same as all other DHs. If he were to play in the field, his value would still be greatly diminished by virtue of him (we are stipulating) being much worse than average at it, and so his numbers do still have the benefit of that not happening.
The WAR columns in BBRef are a little weird and you can’t take the defensive WAR as actually being a penalty. For instance, in 2016 you will notice BBRef credits him with 5.1 offensive WAR and -1.2 defensive WAR (which is by itself clearly not literally possible.) So is his total (5.1-1.2) 3.9? Nope… It’s actually 5.2. You will note the same pattern in every season, as well as his career as a whole. The defensive figure is basically zeroed out for a DH for the reason Jimmy notes. In fact, for his career, his offensive contributions are basically his entire value; his career value is only 1.4 WAR under his offensive value, reflecting his poor play in 250 or so games at first base.
With the induction of Ortiz and Edgar, it’s nigh impossible to argue against defensive whizzes who were solid offensively, like Bobby Grich, Craig Nettles, Scott Rolen and Lou Whitaker. And Keith Hernandez too.
The Hall is really shallow at 3B, and has always been short-sighted in regard to defensive talent. Would love to see those names get more recognition - I expect Rolen will get voted in soon.
Okay, let’s ignore dWAR entirely because, as I think we all agree, it’s pretty flawed. If you look at the definition of oWAR, it still contains a “positional adjustement.”
Personally, I think if you just want to evaluate a player’s offensive ability, look at OPS+. Ortiz’s OPS+ of 141 is right in line with a typical Hall of Fame player. It’s a heck of a lot higher than, say, Paul Molitor at 122, who was a DH more than anything else and was not exactly a plus defender when in the field.
I think it’s more than fair to say Ortiz was a better hitter than Paul Molitor. (Molitor of course was an exceptionally good baserunner, but that doesn’t make up for the whole difference, just some of it.) Molitor had some defensive value though - he did play more than half his games with a glove on, most at third base and second base, and he was average. I don’t think it makes sense to assume a guy has zero defensive value if he’s not above average. You do need someone out there.
I guess the Character Clause of the HoF doesn’t get any consideration here, at least not beyond regards to PEDs.
For me, it’s giving players pre WWII yet another look, that’s ridiculous. And we’ve been considering Negro League players since the 1970s so that’s almost 50 years as well.