FJM is a closed forum, but we welcome reader feedback. We're especially interested in corrections of our work, and research (usually number-crunching) that we may not be able to do ourselves. Please check the comments section as well, where we often post readers' opinions, and, less frequently, announce that we were wrong about something.
You can e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach individually.
A follow-up to my previous post ("FJM Instant Classic," which, by the way, is in reference to the insanity of Joe Morgan's column, and not the quality of my critique):
In the 13th inning of tonight's Marlins-Braves game, right after Andruw Jones hit a slider about 750 feet to left for his 25th home run, Buck Martinez started talking about how before Chipper Jones was hurt, Andruw was hitting like .240, and had no power, and blah blah blah. Then, Chipper gets hurt, and Andruw suddenly turns it on and has a massive June and is going to win an MVP.
I've bitched about this in previous posts, but I am now ready to declare this my biggest beef with sportscasters: the inability to distinguish causality from coincidence.
For example.
Is there any actual proof that Chipper Jones getting hurt in any way helped Andruw Jones, physically or psychologically? Is there any explanation that makes any kind of sense? For that matter, can anyone even make one up? Martinez and Morgan (and others, I assume) just assert that the two are causally linked, but how? Why? If Andruw Jones is having a terrible April, and then one day he drinks a Diet 7-Up and watches the movie "Down Periscope," and then he hits fifty home runs, is it because he drank a Diet 7-Up and watched "Down Periscope?"
Or, for a better analogy, what if Andruw Jones is having a terrible spring, and then SOME OTHER GUY ON HIS TEAM, like, say Julio Franco, reads a "Bloom County" collection and punches his dog in the nose, and starting the next day Andruw Jones goes on a tear and hits 50 home runs, is it because anti-pooch feelings and pro-adorable penguin feelings have somehow passed trough Franco's body and unleashed something buried deep within Andruw Jones?
Why do people insist on finding links like this?
When the Mariners won 114 games a few years back, I heard one of their announcers (don't remember who) cite what he called a "telling" statistic: when Mark McLemore scores a run, the M's are [some kind of very good record]. I remember calculating the corresponding winning percentage, and finding it was within like .015 of the M's overall winning percentage. In other words, when McLemore DIDN'T score a run, the M's record was basically identical to when he did score a run. Thus, the stat was the exact opposite of "telling."
There are tons of these things. Like when a stat flashes on the screen that so and so's ERA in innings 4-6 is 4.50, but from innings 7-9 it's an incredible 1.35!!! Of course, as anyone could realize if (s)he thought about it for two seconds, the only times a pitcher goes 7+ are when he is performing well, hence his ERA will be lower. Or, this team must have a great bullpen, because it's an amazing 42-3 when leading after eight innings! Great. The league average winning % in that scenario is like 95%.
Starting now, I lead the crusade against misattributed causality! Who's with me?!!? No one?!?!? Awesome!!!!!!!!
Causal fact: Matt Clement's great 2005 season kicked off only after Bronson Arroyo did at bunch of jager shots at a Boston College Heaven and Hell party.
I mute ESPN on Sunday nights because it pains me too much to listen to Joe Morgan explain fourteen thousand times in one game that a pitcher must work a batter with high and inside pitches if he wants to strike him out with a low and outside pitch.
Let's see what Joe Morgan has to say about Andruw Jones, shall we?
When you perform on baseball's biggest stage, the expectations of fans are heightened. And while Jones, 28, has had a solid career, some expected him to be better at the plate. It's true that he's averaged 30.6 home runs in his eight full seasons (he debuted in August '96). However, he had a .268 career average heading into this season. He's hit .300 just once (.303 in 2000), and people have expected more from him offensively.
Okay, maybe Jones didn't become the absolute monster some people thought he might at the exact moment they were watching him explode during the 1996 WS. (Mark Lemke never hit .417 in a full season, either.) But here are Jones's career seasonal averages:
.269/.343/.500/.843. 95R, 31 2B, 32 HR, 97 RsBI, 15 SB.
That's pretty damn good. And he's 28. And he's a CF who plays the best defensive center field in like 50 years. And he negotiated his own contract at below market value so he could stay in Atlanta. And he had a .907 OPS in 2000. And he has played on some really terrible offensive teams his entire career. So who in the world cares that he has a .268 career average, or that he's only hit .300 once? If there's a criticism of him, it's maybe that he doesn't walk enough -- he did have 83 BB in 2002, but averages only like 63 a year, and could be more selective. But aren't we nitpicking? Is there one team in the entire league, except maybe the Cards, that wouldn't want Andruw Jones in CF?
The point is, right off the bat here, that Andruw Jones is good. We can all agree there, right Joe? Even though you weirdly start off by talking about how he's not that good, and use stupid statistics to back your point? Whatever. Andruw Jones is really good. We all agree. Good. Now, let's see what incisive analysis you bring to this discussion.
Maybe one of the reasons Andruw is hitting so well this year is because he's not in Chipper's shadow. Andruw has always been the "other Jones" in Atlanta. Chipper has been the star and the major run producer...Sometimes good players are stifled to a degree when they have great teammates.
This is amazing. Joe Morgan thinks the reason Andruw Jones is having a great year...is because Chipper is hurt? How does removing a guy with a .401 lifetime OBP make anyone on his team a better hitter? Does Joe think that these people's egos are so fragile that they are given a boost when a longtime teammate suddenly leaves, or is hurt, or something? In my humble opinion, this is one of the lamest comments announcers and analysts make -- that a player "steps up" when another player goes down, as if the two are causally linked. As if Andruw Jones has been suffering emotionally, for the last ten years, because Chipper gets all the attention. Or like, when Sammy Sosa leaves the Cubs and people start talking about how Derrek Lee is "stepping up" and "putting the team on his back," BECAUSE Sosa left. Like, if Sosa were still there, Derrek Lee would think, "I'm going to take it easy and hit .280 with 18 HR this year, because Sammy Sosa is on the team. What? He got TRADED? Fuck. Okay. I guess I'll hit .380 with 50 HR, because my teammates need me."
If Andruw Jones could have had this year last year, or 2001, or whenever Chipper was MVP, don't we think he would have? How about attributing his good year to the fact that he is 28 and hitting what is widely recognized as his prime four-year stretch? How about using logic and reason and intelligence instead of good ol' timey whimsy and conventional folksy baseball wisdom? How about ANALYZING something instead of just saying stuff you heard Harry Caray say about Ken Boyer in like 1964?
Here's more -- still annoying, but in a new way (for this column):
Still, I don't see Andruw Jones' being a .330-40 HR-125 RBI hitter. But he doesn't have to do that to contribute to the Braves' success. He might not be totally satisfied with his career, but he has to be happy with it – because he's contributed to Atlanta's amazing run of division titles (he's been part of nine of the 13 straight).
Well, if you believe in paces, (and I don't, for the most part, but Andruw doesn't show many signs of slowing down), his actual projection this year is .282/50/114 with a .955 OPS. I love that Joe doesn't even bother to look that up, and just blindly and illogically throws out .330/40/125 -- which is what someone like Pujols, not Andruw, would give you. (As Joe himself noted earlier, Jones has hit .300 only once. And also, again, who the hell cares.) Then he goes on to say that he doesn't have to do that to contribute to Atlanta's success. Right. All he has to do is do everything he has done for the last NINE YEARS, during which he has been an absolute rock in a frequently-changing line-up, offensively and defensively, that wins its division every single year. Also, what on God's green earth would suggest that Andruw Jones is not "satisfied" with his career? And why is holy hell would Joe Morgan feel it necessary to tell Jones, and us, that he "has to be happy with it?" What the hell is that? And then we get this weird diversion:
Another factor has contributed to the heightened expectations faced by Jones: He and Vladimir Guerrero were signed the same year, in 1993, and I'm told that Jones was ranked above Guerrero in at least one analyst's ranking.
Expectations were high for Andruw Jones. Because he was 18 and awesome. Does anybody in the universe remember that he was ranked above Vlad by "at least one analyst?" This is not exactly a Brien Taylor-type situation. Jones has had a great career. Plus, who the hell remembers or cares that Jones and Vlad were signed the same year? Darin Erstad and Geoff Jenkins were both drafted in 1995. I'm sure "at least one analyst" thought Jenkins was better than Erstad. Did that heighten expectations for Jenkins? I'm dizzy, from the stupidity.
As excellent as Jones is, Guerrero has had a better career. Guerrero, 29, is a career .325 hitter, and he's driven in 100 runs six times (compared to three for Jones) and exceeded Jones' career high in homers (36) five times. So Guerrero has been more consistently productive on offense, while Jones is better defensively, but they're both good at both sides of the game. The edge goes to Guerrero because of his batting average and production.
I will refrain from commenting on how rudimentary are Joe's methods of comparison/contrast (still with the BA and RsBI?!), and instead will point out that he makes the same point like six times: Jones is excellent, Guerrero has been better. Guerrero has hit better. Guerrero has been more consistently productive on offense. Jones is better defensively. They're both good at everything. Guerrero is better because he hits better.
Then there's this:
Guerrero also has struck out far less than Jones. In a single season, Guerrero hasn't yet reached the 100-strikeout mark. Jones has struck out 100 or more times eight straight years.
Here are some people who have struck out 100+ times in a season: Jim Thome, Mike Schmidt, Sammy Sosa, Reggie Jackson, Mark McGwire, Willie Stargell, Mickey Mantle, Barry Bonds, Duke Snider, Eddie Matthews, Harmon Killebrew, Ralph Kiner, Jimmie Foxx...should I continue? (amazingly -- side note -- The Babe never did, though he had a few seasons in the 90s.) In fact, most of these players led their league in K's at least once.
How does Joe Morgan, about whom, by the way, Bob Costas once said "no one knows more about baseball than [Joe]," which makes me suddenly hate Bob Costas -- not understand that striking out is not always a bad thing? It's just an out. Is Robert Fick a better player than Andruw Jones because Fick has never struck out 100 times in a season?
Then Joe says:
But comparisons can be misleading, because Andruw Jones is a great player in his own right.
He has made this point fifteen times already. Also, yes, comparisons can be misleading, expecially when they're being made by Joe Morgan. And whom is he warning that comparisons can be misleading? Why did he make the comparison, then? He's arguing with himself. It's like he's saying, "Rocky Road is delicious. Mint Chip is also very good, but Rocky Road is better. But hold on -- don't compare them, it can be misleading. But they're both good. But be careful when you talk about them. But Rocky Road is better. But be careful."
Believe it or not, he's not done yet. Apparently, he does not yet think we have gotten his point about Andruw Jones:
When you excel on the October stage, people expect you to be a .300 hitter, hit 35-40 homers per year and drive in 120 runs every year. Jones hasn't lived up to those expectations, but he has been one of the best and most consistent players in the majors throughout his career.
First of all, the only person who has tossed out those numbers is you, Joe. And second, oh my God, I hate you. YOU were the one who said that those numbers were "expected" of him. YOU are "people." And will you PLEASE stop making the point that Andruw Jones hasn't lived up to some unnamed people's expectations, but is still good?
Joe then goes into a lengthy and miserably-argued section about where Jones ranks defensively all-time. He says: third, behind Mays and Griffey, Jr. I will leave it up to someone else (dak, probably, or maybe Junior [the blogger, not the ballplayer]) to check on Griffey's RF vs. Jones's. (My guess is Jones comes out ahead. Could be wrong.) But suffice it to say, Joe's argument is anecdotal at best, and nonsense at worst.
Then we get to this, completely out of sequence:
The main criticism of Jones as a hitter is that he hasn't been especially patient at the plate. He needs to be more selective, as his eight straight 100-strikeout seasons attest (including a career-high 147 last year). While he's showed stretches of being patient, he's been inconsistent.
Yeah, we talked about this about four pages ago. Where were you, Joe? In any case, he's right that Jones could be more selective, and wrong that the evidence for this is the number of strikeouts he has per year. Jim Thome is incredibly selective, and he strikes out all the time. Adam Dunn is selective -- ditto. Chipper Jones strikes out 90+ times a year and has the aforementioned .401 career OBP. In fact, let's look at some recent league K leaders: Thome, Giambi, Dunn, Bellhorn, Sosa. All guys who are selective hitters. Selective hitters often get to 2-strike counts, and thus often strike out. So, Joe, if a lot of strike-outs isn't necessarily a good indicator of whether a player is a selective hitter, what is?
Hmmmm.
Let's think.
Gosh, I don't know...
How about...
How many times that player WALKS?
How about that, Joe, you blundering dolt?
Jones could walk more. That is, probably, the number one criticism one can make of him as a hitter. It is complete jibberish to say that the fact that he strikes out a lot is evidence that he is not a selective hitter. The two are not causally linked.
He continues:
In today's game, 100 strikeouts isn't that extreme. A hitter should never strike out 147 times, though.
Here are some people who have struck out 140+ times in a season: Adam Dunn, Jim Thome, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, Mo Vaughn, Andres Galarraga, Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, Bobby Bonds, Dick Allen, George Scott, Frank Howard, Harmon Killebrew, Jim Edmonds, Troy Glaus, Mark McGwire. That's, what...at least eight HOFers?
When Jones is patient, he's one of the better hitters in the game. When he isn't, he's just a good hitter – but his good is pretty good. Yes, many fans expected more because of Jones' fantastic start in the '96 World Series...
Oh my God. He's making the same point. Again.
Jones' experience can be compared to Carlos Beltran's performance in the postseason last year. In 12 games in a two-week span, Beltran hit eight home runs (four each in the NLDS and NLCS) with 14 RBI and a .435 average. The difference is that Beltran, 28, was an established major-leaguer when he made his amazing postseason debut. Andruw's teenage youth in the '96 Series gave his success more of a mystique and raised those expectations.
And again. I give up.
EDIT: Added win shares analysis in the "comments section."
Range factor is a statistic used by total baseball to estimate how much ground a player can cover. It’s based on the total number of plays made by a particular player.
As Bill James points out in Win Shares, this is kind of a well-intentioned, but not very productive idea. Think about it for a minute. If you’re a shortstop on the D-Backs, you’re not going to make as many plays as the shortstop for the Tigers. Why? Because you have Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson striking out every third batter. Fewer balls are hit in play and you will make less plays. It has nothing to do with your abilities, but instead with the abilities of your teammates. He notes that teams are worse as their Second Basemen get more putouts. Range factor is a ratio of the number of outs you make to the number of outs your teammates make, not with the numbers of outs other players at your position make.
1. I think you mean "fewer" plays. 2. Sorry. 3. Yeah, RF is kind of shitty. There are a few other metrics you can use, but as we all know, probably, none of them is particularly good. I remember Rob Neyer using RF to prove that Enrique Wilson was a better defensive shortstop than Jeter in 2003...I think Jeter is way overrated defensively (nice work, Gold Glove voters) but even so, I think I'd rather have him than Enrique WIlson. It is also often misused, I think, because (as in the Wilson-Jeter comparison) people compare defensive replacements within teams, which eliminates the "different pitchers" variable, but also leads to incredibly small sample sizes. At the time of Neyer's analysis, Jeter had played in hundreds of games, and Wilson in like fifteen, and unless I don't understand how RF works, that seems like a faulty comparison. Anyway, you have to assume a lot of other shit in order for RF really to mean anything in comparing players, esp. CFs -- like, for example, that each team's other OF are comparable. All of this to say, with RF, I think it's like what Churchill said about Democracy: It's the worst form of government, except for all the others.
FWIW, I added up defensive win shares for a random 3-year period for all CF's. I chose 1999-2001 to encompass Griffey's last year in Seattle and first two years in Cincy. (Later, too late, I realized that he only played 111 games in 2001 due to injury. Don't have the energy to recalculate):
Most Fielding Win Shares per 1000 Innings Among Center Fielders -- 1999-2001
Andruw Jones, 6.26 Juan Pierre, 5.16 Darin Erstad, 5.13 Torii Hunter, 4.93 Mike Cameron, Cin-Sea 4.92
For those of you who still believe that Abner Doubleday invented baseball in Cooperstown, New York, we bring you a line from the gangster movie Donnie Brasco: "Fuhgedaboudit!"
Report: Putin pockets Patriots owner's Super Bowl ring
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin walked off with New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft's diamond-encrusted 2005 Super Bowl ring, but was it a generous gift or a very expensive international misunderstanding?
Following a meeting of American business executives and Putin at Konstantinovsky Palace near St. Petersburg on Saturday, Kraft showed the ring to Putin -- who tried it on, put it in his pocket and left, according to Russian news reports.
Now, I know this blog is about people who say dumb things about sports, but since it's been up and running for like two months and we have already accumulated 1500 misguided comments about the White Sox' success being due to "Small Ball," here, for a change of pace, is another asinine comment from George Steinbrenner.
On his family helping out with the Yanks:
"As I have said many times, `You must let the young elephants into the tent.''
Not to nitpick, but isn't a tent the last place into which you would want to let a young elephant?
If Miguel Tejada were actually tall and white, how over-the-top would the coverage of him being the next Cal Ripken be?
The newspaper articles, the guys yelling on "Around the Horn," the interviews with Cal asking him what he thought of young Michael Tiled trying to take his place in Baltimore ...
I think we're very lucky that scenario didn't arise.
Add Ryne Sandberg to the list. The entirety of his entry on the White Sox in his latest power rankings:
1.Chicago White Sox (50-24) – This team is so strong because of its style of play. The White Sox continue to surprise me because of their ability to hit and run, steal bases and play great defense. They believe in the style of play that Ozzie Guillen has instilled in them.
Not gonna throw their pitchers a bone, there, Ryno? Not going to mention that if their pitching staff, especially their bullpen, weren't playing so great, nobody would be talking about that awesome style of small-ball that gets them a whopping 4.8 runs per game (which, I should mention, is exactly how many runs the Devil Rays have scored this season)? No? Okay, forget it.
If I were Cliff Politte, Dustin Hermanson, Neal Cotts, or Damaso Marte I would be getting kind of sick of this.
The largely sociological post made by dak below led to a discussion of how similar Cal Ripken, Jr. and Miguel Tejada were, and whether Ripken was "head and shoulders" better than Tejada.
I tried to answer the latter question in the comments section. I'm posting it here because I wanted people to read something that wasted like ten minutes of my life.
Dear mattymatty and dak,
My first impulse was to say that no, Cal Ripken was not in fact head and shoulders above Miguel Tejada, at the very least offensively. This reaction was likely based in a) my belief that Tejada is pretty damn great and b) my belief that Cal Ripken gets ball-washed quite a bit, and perhaps is a tiny bit overrated.
But -- and I think you'll appreciate this, dak -- let's really look at the numbers. dak's done some of the work for us, but as he admits, Ripken played in a vastly different offensive era. How will that factor compete with Tejada's "canyon of a ballpark" in Oakland?
Fortunately, we don't have to make hand-waving arguments either way. OPS+ is both era- and park-adjusted. I took Tejada's first seven full seasons and Ripken's first seven full seasons and came up with the following:
Tejada OPS+: 109 Ripken OPS+: 126
What can we draw from this? Up to this point in their respective careers, Cal Ripken was significantly better on offense than Miguel Tejada relative to his peers. Surprising, at least to me.
As a point of comparison, Ripken's average OPS+ over this period is coincidentally equal to Tejada's during the 2004 season, when he was a monster. Tejada's, meanwhile, is close to Juan Uribe's 2004 season, which was very good (an OPS+ of 107; he hit 23 homers and batted .283). But Juan Uribe was no Miguel Tejada last year.
As a side note, I'm pretty suspicious of the baseball-reference.com Similar Batters lists. The metric they use was developed by Bill James, but if you look carefully at what it constitutes, it is NOT era- or park-adjusted. Meaning Tejada's inflated batting average and power totals (due to this recent hitters' era) are compared directly to Ripken's numbers during a much lower-scoring period. So the Similar Batters lists are interesting, but not exactly rigorous.
Which is not to say that it's not the best, quickest, and dirtiest method we have. I'm certainly never going to develop a better way of comparing players across eras because I am too lazy and stupid.
In sum, from what we know so far, Ripken was clearly the better hitter than Tejada through this point in their careers. Head and shoulders better? Maybe. Could Tejada do some things over the next few years that might change how these two stack up? Definitely.
But his numbers will have to be really insane if all the other major league baseball players continue to hit as they have.
Looking carefully at Ripken's stats, you find that he peaked very early in his career. His second and third (full) years in the league were also the second- and third-best years of his career in terms of OPS+!
This, of course, skews his "first seven years' average OPS+" posted above. And his career OPS+ is indeed only 112, but that takes into account a very long, drawn-out decline phase.
Tejada, meanwhile, had two very mediocre years his first two full seasons (not even counting the 104 PA he had when he was 21). Since then, he's been extremely productive, though it's worth noting that he's never surpassed and OPS+ of 126 in any season (in 2002, when he won the AL MVP, it was 122, which gives you an idea of how awesome 126 is).
Of course, it looks like he might break 126 this year.
Where does that leave us? Well, we still can't just throw out Tejada's mediocre years and say he's peaking later, because you simply can't assume things that haven't happened yet. And hey, Ripken did post insane OPS+'s of 144 and 145 in 1983 and 1984, when he was just a young pup.
Anyway, I think Tejada has a chance to equal Ripken's career OPS+ of 112 when all is said and done, but up to this point, you have to say Ripken's been better up to age 28.
Really nice work here. I remember thinking that Rip was overrated offensively, too, and maybe defensively, but it is important we all remember how damn good he was, early on. I'd also like to admit my personal mistake in thinking that Tejada, who never walked and swung at tons of bad pitches, would flop in Baltimore. He's good. But he's going to decline after he turns like 32 and his wrists start slowing down. I predict that by the end of his massive contract, he'll be at .260/.320/.480. You heard it here first.
Well since I started this whole thing, I should probably weight in again, huh?
I'll admit that I grew up a Red Sox fan in DC so I watched Ripken on TV (or heard him on the radio) just about every night. I'm sure that sways me in his direction. Also, I think Tejada is the best all around player in the Majors right now. That said, there is an article in Baseball Prospectus (that predictably I can't find now) about a comparison between these two players. I'll post the link if I find it, but that article was the basis for my statement. That and my pro-Ripken bias.
Found it! Ok, cop out time! Here's BP's Joe Sheehan to prove my point about Ripken Vs. Tejada:
I'm surprised. I thought that the two players would have been much closer in value, as I remember Ripken's career as the high early peak, the great 1991 season (at age 30), and a lot of workmanlike performances in between. He was better than that, and while the raw numbers don't look that great to us now, attuned as we are to the lines put up by Tejada and Alex Rodriguez and their ilk, they were terrific in the context of his team. A year like Ripken's 1987, for instance, when he hit .252/.333/.436, had a ton of value, even though the raw line would get little more than a nod in 2005. Ripken's top two season's both dwarf Tejada's best, and if you line up their careers by WARP, you see Ripken's massive edge at every step. ...
Ripken wasn't accumulating his advantage on just one side of the ball. Compared to Tejada, he was outhitting him in most seasons and out-fielding him in every single one. Ripken was a terrific defensive shortstop in the 1980s, and a good one pretty much up until the day Davey Johnson moved him to third base. Like I said, I'm surprised the gap between the two players is as wide as it is. Note that looking forward a year isn't going to help much, as Ripken had a monster season in 1991, winning the AL MVP with a .323/.374/.566 (14.9 WARP2) line. Ripken would go on to be a six-, seven-win player through age 35, then slowly decline before ending his career after the 2001 season. For Tejada to even approach him in career value, he'd have to extend his current peak for another four years, then have a very slow, long, decline phase.
To me, the funny thing now is that among people interested in sabermetrics, Cal Ripken might be underrated!
The only current shortstop to exceed Ripken's amazing 162 OPS+ season of 1991 is A-Rod, and he hasn't done it since 2001 ... when he hit 52 home runs and posted a 164 OPS+. The very next year, he hit 57 home runs and recorded a mere 152 OPS+!
Let's slow down for a second here. So far, Ripken is better than Tejada, yes. My point is not that Tejada is better than Ripken or the other way around. My point is that they're simply very similar players -- that it's more than superficial to compare the two. The fact that we've now got the 2 longest threads on this blog devoted to this comparison, and that you were quickly able to cite a comparison from BP, leads me to believe that the Ripken / Tejada comparison is at least worthwhile.
I'll grant you that OPS+ through the first X years of their careers give Ripken a more than slight edge. That's nice work. So I guess at this point it comes down to how you define "head and shoulders."
I'd like to see the data that proves that Ripken was a better player defensively. I'm not saying it doesn't exist; it might. I'd just like to see it.
I think they've got a lot in common. They're both Baltimore shortstops who are outstanding hitters and the best players on their teams.
Tejada isn't as universally loved as Ripken. I can think of a few reasons:
1. His team hasn't done anything. Ripken's Orioles won the World Series in 1983, when he was a wunderkind 22-year-old MVP. I can only imagine how popular a player who did that would be today.
2. Tejada has a nice consecutive games streak. Ripken had his ridiculous streak (it is what it is, not saying it was worth it).
3. Ripken was better.
4. (And this is pure speculation ...) Tejada ain't white.
I hate to pull quotes, dak, but this sentence was in your comment below: "What that means is that IN THE HISTORY OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL ONLY ONE PLAYER WAS CLOSER TO MIGUEL TEJADA IN OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION THAN CAL RIPKEN."
I don't think that's true, although I can see why you wrote it (I tend to trust Baseball Reference as well). In fact, there is a shortstop currently playing who has had production more similar to Cal Ripken's than Tejada's.
His name is (gulp) Derek Jeter. Through the age of 30:
Derek Jeter OPS+: 121 Cal Ripken OPS+: 126
Not a popular conclusion around here, but there it is.
We're not talking about how good they are at offensive production -- that's only part of how "similar" they are. Yeah, Jeter's closer to Ripken in OPS+, but he's a different kind of player than Ripken and Tejada. Namely, he steals more bases and hits fewer taters (than both Ripken and Miggy).
This is not about being better or worse than Derek Jeter, Cal Ripken, or Miguel Tejada. Yeah, I'm using B-R's "similar players" metric, and it ain't perfect, but it's better than just comparing OPS+ when we're talking about how similar players are. Isn't it?
Again, as you kind of pointed out Junior, the whole point of this is that we're talking about one dude who's white and one who isn't. I had in fact thought of comparing Ripken to Jeter, but this is problematic for two reasons: a) Jeter is one of the few minorities, or halfsies or whatever, who actually is called a "leader" and a "lunchpail" type player. A smart player, and, I'm sure I've heard, "an ambassador of the game." So it wouldn't have really helped prove the point. b) AND, Jeter is not as similar a player to Ripken as Tejada was. Jeter has been the best offensive player on his team like maybe twice -- without looking it up. Jeter doesn't hit for as much power as Ripken did, especially early in Ripken's career. Don't get me wrong -- they're still very similar, but Tejada's just closer to the type of player that Ripken was. I think, at least.
And yes, of course there are other reasons why Ripken is more popular than Tejada. But I agree with you on point #4, that Ripken was white and Miggy isn't, and that's really all we were concerned with.
I actually think the other reasons you brought up are more pertinent to the discussion than point #3 -- "Ripken was better." I mean, let's think about it for a second. Why would one player be considered the patron saint of gentlemanly ballplayers, while the other is called a little ball of energy? It probably isn't 17 points in OPS+. As Junior points out, it's more likely to be his WS ring at a really young age (see: Derek Sanderson Jeter); his games streak eclipsing another white ghost of baseball (see: Mark David McGwire); and his whiteness (see: white dudes).
Oh, and as far as mattymatty thinking that Tejada's the best player in the game today, well, there's only one other person I know who shares that opinion: Joe Leonard Morgan.
I think you're right, dak. Tejada is more similar to Ripken than Jeter is in terms of overall offensive game. Jeter is a batting average/OBP guy with significantly less power. You can't just use OPS+; otherwise a guy like Ichiro would be "similar" to Ripken, which is crazy.
I'm amending this sentence:
> In fact, there is a shortstop currently playing who has had production more similar to Cal Ripken's than Tejada's.
to this sentence:
In fact, there is a shortstop currently playing who has had production more similar IN VALUE to Cal Ripken's than Tejada's.
OPS+ is a very imperfect measure of value, but still.
Of the current shortstops, I'd say Tejada actually is the most like Ripken. Pretty cool, given the other similarities.
Let's not sneeze at 17 OPS+ points, though. The difference between Tejada and Jimmy Rollins so far is 16 points.
The info about defense is in the same BP article that I quoted below, but I didn't include the numbers because I was trying to have a post less than a mile long. Trust me when I tell you that BP says Ripken was a much better defensive shortstop than Tejada has been so far.
I'm not sure where race fits into this picture. Its kinda interesting that it got brought up, but there are numerous examples of non-white players being thought of as 'gamers' at least recently. Unless Baltimore has some incredible racism that I'm just not aware of I don't see how this fits into the picture.
As for OPS+ I think thats probably the best stat that I know of to compare players across eras. It adjusts for era, ballpark, etc. which makes players comparable who might not be so with more conventional stats.
Dak: I could care less what Joe Morgan thinks about the best player in baseball. Tejada so far has been the MVP in the AL in my opinion. There are tons of worthy candidates, but I'd pick him so far. As I don't recall saying anything negative about anyone, comparing me to Joe Morgan on a blog called "Fire Joe Morgan" seems a bit rude.
On the topic of the value of ops+, I tried to educate myself a little more on the formula, and a weird thing jumped out at me. Unless I am mistaken, the formula assumes that, in a "hitter's park," hits, total bases, walks and hbps are adjusted downward and vice versa for a "pitcher's park." My question is would walks and hbps be necessarily affected by the dimensions and altitude of a particular park. You can argue tired pitchers and poor movement on breaking balls, but I am suspicious of a stat that might, in some cases, inflate ops+ numbers for guys that draw a lot of walks or hbps in a pitcher's park. Like Jeter, for instance.
mattymatty -- don't take it personally. dak gets ornery whenever anyone says anyone other than Pujols or Bonds is the best player in baseball. Miggy is on pace for about 100 XBH and an OPS of .965, and he plays every day, and he's a SS, and I think you're right that he, ARod, or Roberts is your AL MVP so far this year, with Ortiz fourth due to his DH status.
Now, let's all play nice, since we all have one common goal: disgracing Joe Morgan.
yeah dudes. matty, i didn't mean any harm by it...sorry if it came off as a cheap shot.
now, ken t's right; i don't really understand how you can say anyone other than bonds, pujols or a-rod is the best player in baseball. and, joe morgan is literally the only other person i know who thinks miggy is the best player in baseball (he's said it numerous times during game broadcasts). i didn't mean it to be rude; again, sorry if it came off that way.
I know this is straying a bit far from the point of the blog, here, but this really made me laugh.
From ESPN report on Steinbrenner's statement of 6-27:
Team executives are due in Tampa, Fla., on Tuesday for meetings with the Boss that could be a prelude to trades aimed at improving poor pitching and disastrous defense.
"My patience is a little short by the fact that the team is not performing up to its great capabilities," Steinbrenner said in a statement issued by spokesman Howard Rubenstein. "The players have to want to win as much as I do."
Rubenstein said the Yankees owner dictated the statement to him while lifting weights.
How pathetic and desperate is Steinbrenner to seem macho and virile that he has to get it out that he was lifting weights? Rubenstein might as well have said, "Mr. Steinbrenner's remarks were made after a viagra-less sex romp with a 19 year-old female triathlete, during which, I might add, Mr. Steinbrenner performed admirably."
o i get it. he's talking in code. by "the team" he means "players in the aggregate." and by "the players" he means his "individual genitals." and by "great capablities" he means "ninja-level sex."
All right MFers. Sorry for the lack of posts -- I've been out of the country for a while. Also, I don't know why the site is f'd up here at the top. I'm trying to fix it; we might have to switch to a new template if the problem persists.
Regardless, I love the point that Ken Tremendous makes in the "Redux" thread about white guys being called "throwback" players. I'd like to add a little, because it drives me freaking crazy.
I forget who made the following point about Paul O'Neill, but it's a fantastic one. Paul is a no-doubt cry-baby. A whiner. I know we've talked about how much a DVD of nothing but Paul O'Neill being called out on strike 3 would sell for in Red Sox Nation. Yet Paul O'Neill was always labeled a "gamer," a "fiery competitor," a "great teammate." We've all seen athletes of color bark at umps the same way that O'Neill did, and they were usually called borderline head cases. NO ONE in the history of major league baseball has benefitted from being white as much as Paul O'Neill. Look it up.
Here's a comparison to think about: Miguel Tejada and Cal Ripken. Remember, Miguel Tejada has played in more than 800 games in a row. He is credited with raising the level of play of his teammates (I'm not saying it's true, just saying that's what peope say about him), he plays pretty hard (though again, it's hard to think of that many players who don't play hard), and he can flat out rake. What terms do people use to describe Cal Ripken? "Mr. Baseball," "a class act," "saved the sport," "Iron Man," "Ambassador of the Game," "Mr. Whitefolks." What words do people use to describe Miguel Tejada? "Electric," "sparkplug," "quickminded."
When was the last time you heard the word "lunchpail" used to refer to a player who wasn't white? In any sport? What makes Trot Nixon, Brett Favre and Dan Majerle more "lunchpail" than Moises Alou, Byron Leftwich and B.J. Armstrong? Do you have to look like a stereotypical American blue-collar worker to embody the spirit of a "blue-collar athlete"?
I wish I had more evidence to point to -- apologies for the anecdotal-ness.
I think I may have made that point about O'Neill. In any case, Bill Simmons, who should really be cited on this blog more, not for stupidity but for general asinineness, made a pretty good point recently hen he noted that you neer see white players and black players compared to each other. If a white basketball player is good, he is compared to Larry Bird or Vlade Divac, and corresponding black players are compared to Jordan, Pippen, Magic, etc. This is silly, in 2005. Can't we all just agree that, say, Daunte Culpepper and Troy Aikman are similar QBs, minus the SB rings? Why can't someone say that Raffy Palmeiro's swing reminds him/her of Ken Griffey's? Et cetera. Also, welcome back, DAK, and yes, The Rick did need to come back, because people don't hate Boston sports fans enough right now.
I agree completely (and I LOVE this blog) with the general gist of the post. That said, Cal Ripken and Miguel Tejada are only similar players superficially (both Baltimore shortstops who have played a bunch of games in a row). Ripken was head and shoulders above Tejada as a ballplayer. Its not even close both offensively and defensively.
I know that wasn't the point of the post, but I felt it necessary to say.
mattymatty wrote: "That said, Cal Ripken and Miguel Tejada are only similar players superficially (both Baltimore shortstops who have played a bunch of games in a row). Ripken was head and shoulders above Tejada as a ballplayer. Its not even close both offensively and defensively."
To begin with, Cal Ripken and Miguel Tejada have the following in common: 1) MVPs 2) Offensive and "clubhouse" leaders of their team 3) Shortstops for the Baltimore Orioles 4) 2 of the 3 longest consecutive games played streaks of the last 35 years (Garvey)
Is that really "superficial"? I don't think so. But if you still do, well, this is where it gets good.
It'd be foolish to compare all of Ripken's career to Tejada's so far...so how similar are they up to this point in Tejada's career? Well, Tejada was 28 before the season started. Here's a chart of the most similar batters in Major League Baseball history, to Miguel Tejada, through age 28: http://baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=tejadmi01:Miguel+Tejada&st=int&compage=28&age=28
Guess who's #2? That's right: Cal Ripken. What that means is that IN THE HISTORY OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL ONLY ONE PLAYER WAS CLOSER TO MIGUEL TEJADA IN OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION THAN CAL RIPKEN. By the way, the same is true the other way -- Tejada is the second most similar batter to 28-year-old Ripken. (link: http://baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=ripkeca01:Cal+Ripken&st=int&compage=28&age=28)
Is this not similar enough to you? "Superficial"? They're a Vern Stephens away from being identical offensive twins.
If you want to look at career averages (up through last night's game for Tejada): OBP: Ripken: 340; Tejada: 338 SLG: Ripken: 447; Tejada: 480 AVG: Ripken: 276; Tejada: 279
Yes, Ripken played in a less offensive time, but Tejada's spent most of his career in that canyon of a ballpark in Oakland.
As far as defense goes, I don't have great numbers available, but career range factors: Ripken 4.62 (as SS); Tejada 4. 65.
My first impulse was to say that no, Cal Ripken was not in fact head and shoulders above Miguel Tejada, at the very least offensively. This reaction was likely based in a) my belief that Tejada is pretty damn great and b) my belief that Cal Ripken gets ball-washed quite a bit, and perhaps is a tiny bit overrated.
But -- and I think you'll appreciate this, dak -- let's really look at the numbers. dak's done some of the work for us, but as he admits, Ripken played in a vastly different offensive era. How will that factor compete with Tejada's "canyon of a ballpark" in Oakland?
Fortunately, we don't have to make hand-waving arguments either way. OPS+ is both era- and park-adjusted. I took Tejada's first seven full seasons and Ripken's first seven full seasons and came up with the following:
Tejada OPS+: 109 Ripken OPS+: 126
What can we draw from this? Up to this point in their respective careers, Cal Ripken was significantly better on offense than Miguel Tejada relative to his peers. Surprising, at least to me.
As a point of comparison, Ripken's average OPS+ over this period is coincidentally equal to Tejada's during the 2004 season, when he was a monster. Tejada's, meanwhile, is close to Juan Uribe's 2004 season, which was very good (an OPS+ of 107; he hit 23 homers and batted .283). But Juan Uribe was no Miguel Tejada last year.
As a side note, I'm pretty suspicious of the baseball-reference.com Similar Batters lists. The metric they use was developed by Bill James, but if you look carefully at what it constitutes, it is NOT era- or park-adjusted. Meaning Tejada's inflated batting average and power totals (due to this recent hitters' era) are compared directly to Ripken's numbers during a much lower-scoring period. So the Similar Batters lists are interesting, but not exactly rigorous.
Which is not to say that it's not the best, quickest, and dirtiest method we have. I'm certainly never going to develop a better way of comparing players across eras because I am too lazy and stupid.
In sum, from what we know so far, Ripken was clearly the better hitter than Tejada through this point in their careers. Head and shoulders better? Maybe. Could Tejada do some things over the next few years that might change how these two stack up? Definitely.
But his numbers will have to be really insane if all the other major league baseball players continue to hit as they have.
Fire Joe Morgan has acquired the full transcript for Joe Morgan's June 24th ESPN.com chat, including private messages sent between The Showgirl and Joe Morgan, which are displayed in red.
The ShowGirl: (9:55 AM ET ) Welcome to The Show! Hall of Famer Joe Morgan will be here at 10 to take your baseball questions. Send 'em in now!
Joe Morgan: (10:05 AM ET ) Hey, The Showgirl, I'm really sorry, I've been delayed a couple minutes, but I promise I'll be in to chat ASAP...
The ShowGirl: (10:06 AM ET ) Joe's been delayed a couple minutes, but he'll be here ASAP...
The ShowGirl: (10:07 AM ET ) Joe?
The ShowGirl: (10:08 AM ET ) Joe?
The ShowGirl: (10:09 AM ET ) Joe?
The ShowGirl: (10:10 AM ET ) Hello, Joe?
The ShowGirl: (10:11 AM ET ) Joe?
The ShowGirl: (10:12 AM ET ) Are you there?
The ShowGirl: (10:13 AM ET ) Joe?
The ShowGirl: (10:14 AM ET ) Joe?
The ShowGirl: (10:15 AM ET ) Seriously, Joe, you're contractually obligated to do one online chat a week. It's part of your job.
The ShowGirl: (10:16 AM ET ) Joe, this is extremely unprofessional.
The ShowGirl: (10:17 AM ET ) Jesus, Joe, all we ask is that you do a chat from anywhere in the world there's a working computer for 45 minutes a week. You can even cut out early like you do most of the time.
The ShowGirl: (10:18 AM ET ) Joe?
The ShowGirl: (10:19 AM ET ) Sorry folks, it actually looks like we're going to have to postpone or reschedule Joe's chat for today. So sorry for the confusion. I'll keep you posted on Joe's raincheck and hang on to all of your questions for the next time.
Joe Morgan's most informative chat session to date (June 24th):
The ShowGirl: (9:55 AM ET ) Welcome to The Show! Hall of Famer Joe Morgan will be here at 10 to take your baseball questions. Send 'em in now!
The ShowGirl: (10:06 AM ET ) Joe's been delayed a couple minutes, but he'll be here ASAP...
The ShowGirl: (10:19 AM ET ) Sorry folks, it actually looks like we're going to have to postpone or reschedule Joe's chat for today. So sorry for the confusion. I'll keep you posted on Joe's raincheck and hang on to all of your questions for the next time.
This is so dumb, I'm not even going to comment on it.
John Kruk, professional architecht, fixes Coors Field:
Since I mentioned Coors Field above, I want to briefly discuss how I think the Rockies should change their park. Obviously, the problem with Coors is that as big as it is, balls still fly out because it's in Colorado. To counteract that, the Rockies should move the fences in and make the outfield walls as high as Fenway. That way, a fly ball that is decently hit is still going to be a homer, but those line-drive homers would stay in the park.
Great idea! The possibilities are endless! We could totally remove the walls in Dodger Stadium, and if the ball rolled into the crowd the players could fight fans for it. Think of all the exciting inside-the-park homers.
Or just put big holes in the wall with "Homerun" "Triple" "Out" painted next to them. Just like that game Krukkie used to play in the arcades when he was 8.
Predictably, the Mets' terrible bullpen imploded and the Yankees came back to win in the bottom of the ninth.
Interestingly, though, the key hits in that inning were delivered by New York's least favorite sons, Alex Rodriguez and Jason Giambi. Not once did Joe Morgan mention how clutch their hitting was tonight. I wonder how much ejaculate would have been expelled in the booth had Jeter done the same.
He did, however, mention that Joe Torre did a brilliant job of having the right guys hitting in the inning. What?
I mean, he pinch-hit with Tino, which was actually a questionable move given that it would have destroyed the defense in the event of a tie. Tino walked, which saved an out.
But the Yankees won the game with zero outs on the board.
John Kruk, on BBTN, just talked about the Red Sox' 8th-inning rally, and mentioned how he thought the key was David Ortiz "giving himself up" by pulling the ball to the right side of the infield with Mark Bellhorn on 2nd and nobody out. David Ortiz, it's fair to say, has never tried to "give himself up" by pulling the ball to the right side. He hits almost everything to the right side. That's why teams put on the crazy Ted Williams shift when he comes up. He is a dead pull hitter, with occasional power to center and even more occasional power to left center. Everyone in the universe who watches baseball knows this.
So, maybe the problem is that Kruk doesn't know the difference between a hitter "giving himself up" and a hitter "hitting the ball like he always, always, always does every time he is ever playing baseball." In other words, Kruk cannot discern between deliberate intention and mere coincidence.
Another problem is that he is a fat idiot who eats a plate of his own turds every night right before BBTN.
I was watching that game, and was amazed not only by Ortiz brilliantly and selflessly "giving himself up," but by his seemingly amazing ability to decide to have his bat shatter on the play, thereby deadening the ball.
The ol' "Shatter the Bat" play. The perfect way to manufacture a productive out.
