According to calculations by Dan Syzmborski of Baseball Think Factory, Martinez’s minor league numbers in 1988 and 1989 suggest he would have accumulated 469 plate appearances at an O.P.S. 12 percent above average had he played in Seattle.

This is kind of a dangerous tactic to use in this argument, since Martinez did play in Seattle in 1988 and 1989, although he accumulated only 234 plate appearances (oddly enough, almost exactly half of the "suggestion"), and had an O.P.S. below the league average.

I presume that Dan is (mis)using OPS+ whenever he says "an O.P.S. x percent above average." Recall that OPS+ is:

(OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1) * 100

So an OPS+ of 112 isn't an OPS 12 percent above average, although it does suggest that a player's runs per out will be 12 percent above average. OPS is probably only 6% above average, though.

those who spent at least three-quarters of the time as a D.H. fielded about 11 fewer balls per season when playing first base than a league-average defender would have reached. Thus, one can subtract 11 hits per year (mostly singles and some doubles) from a D.H.’s batting line to compare him fairly with first basemen.

I don't get that argument. Even if we stipulated that had Martinez played first base, he would have been at worst a bit below average, the fact is he didn't play first base, so I don't see how you can give him any credit. By that argument, if Ozzie Smith had been traded to the AL and moved to DH by some crazed GM after his fifth season (so his defensive talent was established), and finished his career at that position, he should have made the HOF too. No. Giving defensive credit to DHs is like giving defensive credit to managers when voting.

Dan, does anyone consistently spell your last name correctly?
Apart from that, I think giving credit for minor league performance for late-20th century players is foolish. As Mike Emeigh (among others) has covered, there were valid reasons for keeping him on the farm for some of that time + more importantly, we don't go and credit everybody else for their ml-quality minor league time ... just cases like this where it might make a difference.

I don't get that argument. Even if we stipulated that had Martinez played first base, he would have been at worst a bit below average, the fact is he didn't play first base, so I don't see how you can give him any credit. By that argument, if Ozzie Smith had been traded to the AL and moved to DH by some crazed GM after his fifth season (so his defensive talent was established), and finished his career at that position, he should have made the HOF too. No. Giving defensive credit to DHs is like giving defensive credit to managers when voting.

That is all correct, but I think what people are trying to get at with this is not that a DH should be given "credit" for what they didn't do. So it's not a question of what you individually were capable of. It's about trying to estimate roughly what the average defensive capability of a DH is.

Because DH is a position. A first baseman who made zero plays would be an impossible liability because there's a spot on the field that he's meant to be covering. A DH, however, is a slot that AL teams get to fill.

One way to think about it is that if you're a GM, in an ideal world you'd have defensive players capable of converting every batted ball into an out. When constructing a team, you identify how much of a hit you have to take on defense in order to get average production from each of your 9 offensive positions.

You're guaranteed to never have to take a defensive hit for your DH. So whoever you get for that is therefore costing you the ability to bump the next worse defensive player to DH. Figuring out what the average DH could offer if you had him on the field is therefore a rough estimation of how much teams are, in practice, actually "gaining" on defense from their first baseman.

In effect, it's a different way of trying to set a replacement level for first base defense. It's the line of how bad you would have to be before (on average) your club would be better served by sticking you in as DH. And, on the other side of the equation, the average difference is a demonstration of how much teams actually gain from the existence of the DH.

In this instance, the numbers appear to suggest that having a DH gave every AL team a bonus of 11 outs. Meaning, they were given the chance to sign and play someone who is 11 outs worse than the average first baseman without having to take a defensive hit. Since they HAVE to fill their DH slot, they're only going to break even if they can find a guy who hits at a rate that actually MATCHES that 11 out bonus that every other team is also getting.

The short version is: you HAVE to fill your DH slot and readily available DH talent is giving teams the advantage of getting to deploy offensive talent that would normally do them 11 outs worth of defensive damage. How well you do on this equation determines how much value your DH is providing.

So, it's not about giving the DH any defensive credit. It's about determining what the average team is gaining from having a DH and then calibrating a particular player to that. It's the same thing we do with other positional adjustments.

Of course, this doesn't address the fact that a lot of teams don't have "a DH" but instead cycle people through. Having a permanent DH limits that ability. And, I'm also skeptical of the 11 outs number. But I do think the general principle is sound.

And, I'm also skeptical of the 11 outs number.

Dan probably backed that out of Tango's positional adjustments. When phrased that way it sounds pretty awkward to those of us who are comfortable with modern run-estimation, but for a NYT article it's probably more succinct than an explanation of the basics of linear weights.

As Mike Emeigh (among others) has covered, there were valid reasons for keeping him on the farm for some of that time + more importantly, we don't go and credit everybody else for their ml-quality minor league time ... just cases like this where it might make a difference.

And as others (like me) have covered, there were not valid reasons for doing so. It's understandable why they did it, but it was a bad decision based on the facts available at the time.

You may disagree, but I don't think this is a settled question.

As for the second part ("just cases like this where it might make a difference") - I don't think that's accurate. As those of us who think minor league (or, simply non-MLB like in the case of Ichiro) performance matters always try to emphasize: you can absolutely think about it in other contexts, too. It's just that, as you point out, it could only ever influence a decision in these close cases.

If Manny Ramirez mashed in the minor leagues, sure, add it to his resume. He's already over-qualified but if it breaks a tie for 79th best player in ML history, then good. Similarly, Jack Cust had some nice minor league numbers but who cares?

And as others (like me) have covered, there were not valid reasons for doing so. It's understandable why they did it, but it was a bad decision based on the facts available at the time.

Count me in the camp that would disagree that it was a bad decision based on the facts available at the time. I haven't seen the discussion here regarding the whole issue, but the M's acted very rationally with their handling of the situation. Any decision different than the one they made would have only added a half a year or so more to his career stats, at a time when he wasn't really much of a hitter. That extra time added onto his career wouldn't make a hill of beans difference to his Hall of Fame chances.

more importantly, we don't go and credit everybody else for their ml-quality minor league time ... just cases like this where it might make a difference.

Some of us have a limited amount of time in which to build minor league credit arguments. It makes sense that they'd be used primarily where they might make a difference. I mean, it's nice that Barry Larkin slugged .525 for Denver in 1986, but a large majority of Primates think he should be in the Hall regardless. (Plus, since it's the PCL, I have no idea whether that's actually impressive or not.)

Or, pretty much what Baldrick said.

The problem I have with using MLEs for these sorts of evaluations is the selective sampling problem. Teams have a tendency promote players they think are likely to succeed in the majors - and not all of those indicators are necessarily based upon their minor league stats. At the same time, teams will give more ML playing time to players who do well in the majors than those who do not.

So an MLE is a translation of performace based upon certain assumptions - and when an MLB team doesn't in fact promote a player, you have a reason to suspect those assumptions may not be true. In other words, we have some reason to believe that MLEs have a systemic bias towards overrating players who aren't promoted.

Tom Nawrocki--Those 234 PA are already included in his major league stats. The 469 are the major league equivalent of the PA he posted in the minors for those seasons, which are added to his line.

CW uses it as a stick to beat someone with--Yes, I know perfectly well how OPS+ is calculated. I am using it in the way it is commonly understood throughout the sabermetric world. And no, I didn't "back it out of Tango's positional adjustments." I looked at the aggregate defensive performance of primary-DH's playing 1B (using a weighted-and-regressed average of PBP and Retrosheet fielding stats, the specifics of which can be found in the Hall of Merit thread devoted to my WARP data), and then converted that figure (8-9 runs a season) to hits using standard run estimator values.

A Surfeit of Peaches Graham--No one is "giving defensive credit to DH's." As I said at the beginning of the piece, we are determining what the value of merely playing defense is. This method suggests that a DH has the same impact on a team's record as an average-fielding first baseman with the same batting line, minus 11 hits per year.

Der K 2--I think online it's mostly spelled correctly.

I don't think the specific circumstances, or decision-making aptitude, of the '88-'89 Mariners are the point at all. The question is whether Edgar was demonstrating major league ability. Why should we only accept a MLE if a major league team seems to agree with it? We accept it because we believe it legitimately represents an ability, just as we do in the various circumstances where it was impossible for the guy to be "called up" to MLB.

In any case, if I were writing a very limited-length HOF article for the New York Times, I would skip the entire issue. It's hard to convincingly explain the pro-MLE argument, especially in few words; a lot of people will still disagree with you even after you explain it; the real voters won't be considering it; and what the heck difference does "469 plate appearances at an O.P.S. 12 [or 6] percent above average" make to a DH's Hall of Fame case anyway.

and what the heck difference does "469 plate appearances at an O.P.S. 12 [or 6] percent above average" make to a DH's Hall of Fame case anyway.

Except he wouldn't have been a DH in those plate appearances, just like he wasn't a DH in most of his play before 1995.

I was generalizing, in the sense that he is going to be viewed as a DH by the voters and thus held to a higher offensive standard than even a 1B, in which case 469 more PA of 112 OPS+ isn't going to particularly help any. I do realize that they should be considering him as "only" 70% a DH, but again, generalizing. I don't think an additional 469 PA of 112 OPS+ would make a big difference to the case of a guy with 2000 games played at 3B, either.

Anyway, I don't think getting into these weeds was at all worth it in the context of this article. It's not like Dom DiMaggio or something where you couldn't even begin to make the guy's argument without discussing the war credit issue. It's a very minor (to speak) part of Edgar's case, and yet it's something a skeptic can jump right on.

The point of the story was to illustrate all the issues raised by Martinez's candidacy. No, the MLE's don't make a big difference to the bottom line, but they do provide an opportunity to teach readers about MLE's.

Der K 2--I think online it's mostly spelled correctly.

The Times just has lower standards?

It's spelled right on the article page...

No, the MLE's don't make a big difference to the bottom line, but they do provide an opportunity to teach readers about MLE's.

People are more likely to take MLEs seriously if there's no major league equivalent standing in the way. If you tell people the MLE says Edgar deserve credit for being a 112 OPS+ hitter in 1988-89, when we can see that he was really a 79 OPS+ hitter in the major leagues those two seasons, it's probably just going to lead them to think that MLEs are hogwash.

It's spelled right on the article page...

I'm confused. Are you saying Szym's name was spelled correctly in the hard copy, because it's sure not spelled correctly in the linked excerpt.

Oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you meant HIS last name, not mine. Sheiza! Let me see if it's not too late to get that in....

I'm confused. Are you saying Szym's name was spelled correctly in the hard copy, because it's sure not spelled correctly in the linked excerpt.

This is the confusion that occurs when you ask one Dan why another Dan's last name is misspelt, referring to Dan only as Dan.

Yes, I know perfectly well how OPS+ is calculated. I am using it in the way it is commonly understood throughout the sabermetric world.

Okay, well, the common understanding throughout the sabermetric would of what OPS+ means is wrong. And it's pretty obviously wrong to anyone who "knows perfectly well how OPS+ is calculated." I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you made a pretty common honest mistake - the name is of course rather misleading.

So I'm sorry that offended you. In the future I'll make sure to assume that any presumable mistakes on your part are really knowing falsehoods, in an effort to prevent any future misunderstandings of this sort.

I was generalizing, in the sense that he is going to be viewed as a DH by the voters and thus held to a higher offensive standard than even a 1B, in which case 469 more PA of 112 OPS+ isn't going to help any. I do realize that they should be considering as "only" 70% a DH, but again, generalizing. I don't think an additional 469 PA of 112 OPS+ would make a big difference to the case of a guy with 2000 games played at 3B, either.

There are four reasons why this MLE stuff matters.

1. One of the main arguments against Edgar is that he had a short career. If you add in another 500 plate appearances, give or take, he gets a lot closer to 10,000.

2. One of the other big arguments against Edgar is that he spent such a disproportionate amount of time at DH. But thinking about minor league stats helps us remember that he was a full-time third baseman until he was 29 - it's just that a lot of that happened to be in AAA. A guy with 1/4 of his games in the field is a little different than a guy with 1/3 of his games in the field. If you then remember that he played third base, things change again. My guess is that an average-fielding third baseman over 700 games contributes more than an average-fielding first baseman over 1000 or 1100.

Those two are variations on the same point, which is that the general 'feel' of his career would be a lot different if he could have added those games - even in a world where he "only" had a 100 OPS+.

3. As I've said in the past, Edgar has intangibles up the Wazoo. He saved baseball in Seattle. He spent his whole career with one team. He's universally thought of as a great guy. He's the guy that stuck around after Griffey, Johnson, and A-Rod all left - and then turned in a world-class season and helped the M's win 116 games. He worked ridiculously hard, including hours of eye exercises every day (making it harder to 'dumb, lazy DH' sorts of ideas to stick). He is 'the best DH ever' (which is silly but actually does appeal to some people).

On the other hand, he's a career DH. He has no defensive value. Doesn't have a lot of big counting stats. Etc.

A lot of traditional voters are going to be balancing these two elements. Bringing up this minor league stuff isn't meant to persuade people who are adamant. It's just supposed to encourage people to take another look. Basically, to give themselves something to hang their hat on while they consider precisely where the line between HOF and HOVG should be drawn.

4. What Dan R said in #15.

So that I'm not just spouting off here - presume a league with an average OBP of .340 and an average SLG of .450, and presume that we're talking about a player in a league-average park for offense.

Let's take a hypothetical player that is six percent better than the league in both OBP and SLG:

0.3604/.340 + 0.477/.450 - 1 = 1.12

And:

(.3604+.477)/(.340+.450) = 1.06

3. As I've said in the past, Edgar has intangibles up the Wazoo. He saved baseball in Seattle.

Huh?

Huh?

I think maybe he meant "sustained" more than "saved".

I think maybe he meant "sustained" more than "saved".

Naw, I'm going with "saved":

The Mariners' late season comeback, their first division title in franchise history, and ultimately the Double, brought the Seattle fan base back to life and sparked a desire to keep the team in town. Lou Piniella, the Mariners' manager from 1993–2002, called Martinez's hit and the 1995 postseason "the hit, the run, the game, the series and the season that saved baseball in Seattle."[1] Soon after the events of October 8, the Washington State Legislature held a special session and approved an alternative funding package to enable the building of a new ballpark, which culminated in the construction of Safeco Field. [10][11]

Pretty good points, Craig. That in addition to the less-specifically-legislative Baldrick points do indeed make a good case for that word.

The Mariners' late season comeback, their first division title in franchise history, and ultimately the Double, brought the Seattle fan base back to life and sparked a desire to keep the team in town. Lou Piniella, the Mariners' manager from 1993–2002, called Martinez's hit and the 1995 postseason "the hit, the run, the game, the series and the season that saved baseball in Seattle."[1]

Well, if someone wrote it on wikipedia, and if Lou Piniella said it, I'm sure it was true.

Soon after the events of October 8, the Washington State Legislature held a special session and approved an alternative funding package to enable the building of a new ballpark, which culminated in the construction of Safeco Field. [10][11]

Where do you think the Mariners were moving to? Or were they just going to be contracted?

They drew 25,000 fans per game in 1993. They drew 25,000 in 1994. These attendance levels were 9th and 8th in the league in those years, respectively. Given that, why in the hell would they have moved had they not made the playoffs in 1995? Why would they have been contracted?

Before Edgar became a full-time player in 1990 they were consistently 12th-14th in attendance, and they didn't go anywhere. From 1990-1992 they were 12th-14th in attendance and they didn't go anywhere. Then their attendance increased in 1993 and so they... weren't going anywhere.

1995 had absolutely nothing to do with them staying in Seattle. They weren't moving even if they hadn't gotten a new funding package approved immediately following the season. And if the stadia situations of other cities are any guide, they'd have gotten the funding sooner or later.

A better line of argument would be just to point out that Edgar did not singlehandedly save anything. Griffey is the man popularly credited with saving baseball in Seattle. And even he is not in a position to do it without dozens or hundreds of other actors...

Pretty good points, Craig. That in addition to the less-specifically-legislative Baldrick points do indeed make a good case for that word.

Yeah, that's precisely what I was referencing. It's even got it's own Wikipedia page!

Obviously, the whole team made 1995 possible. But that one moment is without a doubt the single most significant sporting event of my lifetime (the only thing I can even imagine topping it would be the US winning the World Cup or a close relative winning Olympic gold). As a 14 year old kid who had supported the Mariners his whole life I literally had no experience with success. The Refuse to Lose summer made me a believer, and Edgar clinched it with The Double. There's obviously more to the folklore, but I really think if you asked Mariners fans why the team is still in Seattle, a pretty high percentage would say Eddddgaaaaaaaaaaaar.

Yeah, that's precisely what I was referencing. It's even got it's own Wikipedia page!

I know, but BTF eats the commas in Wiki pages, and I didn't know how to link it.

Where do you think the Mariners were moving to?

Tampa.

Much to my chagrin, Edgar hit enough as a DH to overcome his lack of playing defense. I had staunchly held him out, but just looking at a simple measure like OPS+ * PA (quality times quantity), and Edgar is high enough where he's above the line where poor defense would cost him.

I was amazed.