The next time someone tells you that the RBI statistic isn’t really all that overrated, and hasn’t really served to cause people to misperceive the actual value of ballplayers, just answer with these two words: Joe Carter.

Absolutely, because when they say "Why?" you can say "He had an OPS+ of 77 in 1997, and only 105 for his career!" I'm sure that will convince someone who still believes RBI is an important measure of a ballplayer's actual value.

I'm a little confused about how somebody can open an article with, "This isn't a serious 'study.' It's just for fun," and then proceed to make definitive statements about the overall quality of players like, "Indeed he was, as indicated here, repeatedly performing as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century."

"Certainly, OPS+ isn't the be-all and end-all of offensive measurement" has become the "No offense, but..." disingenuous qualifier of baseball statistics.

I liked how at the 85 OPS+ level, Armas and Presley had a total of zero IBBs and Carter had 13. Not sure if it means something, but it is illustrative in its way.

I'm a little confused about how somebody can open an article with, "This isn't a serious 'study.' It's just for fun," and then proceed to make definitive statements about the overall quality of players like, "Indeed he was, as indicated here, repeatedly performing as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century."

Dude. If anything, OPS+ probably overrates Carter. Is there a different rate stat that would suggest that he wasn't, as indicated by OPS+, repeatedly performing as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century?

Is there a different rate stat that would suggest that he wasn't, as indicated by OPS+, repeatedly performing as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century?

I don't know, is there? I'm not the one making the claim.

On edit: my objection has nothing to do with Joe Carter and everything to do with what you're trying to say OPS+ is and is not. I would have less of a problem if you had said, "I believe Carter is overrated generally, and this study is giving one piece of evidence toward that conclusion." Either that or say that OPS+ is, in fact, the end-all and be-all. Just looking for consistency.

I think the Don Baylor analysis is off. Looking back at 1980, he was, as was acknowledged, coming off an MVP season (not deserved, but he sure looked like a clean up hitter. In 1980, he missed most of the first three months. Finally, in July, he appeared pretty healthy, and played virtually every day, and hit okay. I don't think it was at all obvious he was done for the season at that point. Yet Treder says the following:

What wasn't so reasonable was that Fregosi stuck with Baylor even as it became abundantly obvious that the wrist injury that was plaguing Baylor that season had thoroughly drained his power

Well its obvious in hindsight that the wrist injury drained him of his power, but I don't think it was at all obvious on July 1 or August 1, 1980 that Baylor would not with power for the rest of the year, and those were the only months he played regularly. Unless one month of results is enough to take the prior MVP and bench him, which I pretty strongly disagree with.

Is there a different rate stat that would suggest that he wasn't, as indicated by OPS+, repeatedly performing as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century?

Maybe RBIs per hit? RBIs per AB?

Is there a different rate stat that would suggest that he wasn't, as indicated by OPS+, repeatedly performing as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century?

Joe Carter was, for most of his career, an above average hitter. Not a superstar like some thought, but not nearly as bad as Steve is making him out to be. His OPS+, starting in 1986: 130, 104, 117, 110, 85, 125, 119, 112, 113. Again, no superstar, but he wasn't Mario Mendoza out there. He didn't walk a lot, and he was overrated, so sabermetric types hate him, but he really wasn't that bad for much of his career. He had a couple of bad seasons, particularly at the end, but in total, he wasn't anything like the worst clean-up man in the past fifty years.

On closer inspection, this:

Obviously it's great if a cleanup hitter hits for a high average and/or draws a lot of walks, but if he's doing either or both of those things without hitting for power, he isn't properly performing the cleanup function. Setting the table is a means to an end, not an end in itself; the purpose of getting on base is to come around and score. The cleanup hitter is there to convert baserunners into runs, to finish what the others have started. And that means hitting for power, and plenty of it.

leads me to believe that OPS+ isn't even all that relevant to the stated goal of the article. If being a good cleanup hitter "means hitting for power, and plenty of it," then why not just use SLG?

Maybe RBIs per hit? RBIs per AB?

RBI % would be a better stat (RBI divided by runners on base when up)

Joe Carter is a customer at the dry cleaner my mother owns.

Maybe RBIs per hit? RBIs per AB?

no because Carter was extraordinarily lucky in terms of RBI chances

Is there a different rate stat that would suggest that he wasn't, as indicated by OPS+, repeatedly performing as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century?

In 1997 Carter had these splits (according to BBREF):
High Leverage: .275/.357/.442
Low Leverage: .214/.251/.349

His career tOPS+ with RISP was 111
with no one on it was 97.

1996 another bad OPS+ year he hit .276/.353/.534 with RISP and .238/.278/.428 with no one on.

Obviously Carter, with the enormous # of outs he was making was not an ideal clean-up hitter, and was not as good a hitter as the MSM assumed based upon his RBI totals, but he was probably somewhat better than context neutral measures like OPS+ or RC allow for.

A clearer example is probably Fenchy, who right now has a career OPS+ of 99, but has hit .323/.372/.516 for his career with RISP. Obviously an OPS+ of 99 underrates what he has done for the Braves offense

"His OPS+, starting in 1986: 130, 104, 117, 110, 85, 125, 119, 112, 113."

Of course, OPS+ overstates his value, since a point of OBP is worth more than a point of SLG, and Carter was pretty good at hitting for power but pretty bad at getting on base.

Also, severe demerits to Steve for saying that Jeffrey Leonard's nickname was "Hackman". It was, and always will be, "Penitentiary Face".

I know it doesn't really fit with the premise of the article, but it's just so cool, dammit.

Of course, OPS+ overstates his value, since a point of OBP is worth more than a point of SLG, and Carter was pretty good at hitting for power but pretty bad at getting on base.

Which is a good argument if the debate is over how good a "hitter" Carter was. But, on the other hand, isn't SLG more important than OBP for a cleanup hitter? And aren't walks, in particular, less valuable if you're in a position in the batting order where the guys behind you are far less likely to drive in the runners that you leave on base when you walk? So, if the question is, how good was Joe Carter as a "cleanup hitter" couldn't one make the argument that the high SLG more than makes up for the low OBP and that his relatively low number of walks are, at worst, not a bad thing, and arguably maybe even a good thing?

(Then again, even I realize that argument's a bit of a stretch.)

It was, and always will be, "Penitentiary Face".

I heard that was modified to "Correctional Institution Face".

RBI % would be a better stat (RBI divided by runners on base when up)

Not necessarily (but maybe) for suggesting he was a better cleanup man than his OPS+ indicated.

no because Carter was extraordinarily lucky in terms of RBI chances

The question was, is there a rate stat that makes Carter look better than OPS+ does. I bet those RBI stats do that. As #1 said, you have to preach to the unconverted, and there are obstacles to that.

Tied for third-worst cleanup hitter since 1957

OPS+: 77

Tim Wallach, third baseman, 1991 Montreal Expos (team OPS+: 95)

I'm sad to say it but well, Tim wasn't much of a hitter although the 14 year old boy I was then just plain loved the guy.

That said, I don't think Tim hit the wall in 1991. He managed a .280/.356/.502 season three years later. He was just that kind of hitter : really good one out of every four season and pretty much s***ing the other three.

I think the Don Baylor analysis is off. Looking back at 1980, he was, as was acknowledged, coming off an MVP season (not deserved, but he sure looked like a clean up hitter. In 1980, he missed most of the first three months. Finally, in July, he appeared pretty healthy, and played virtually every day, and hit okay. I don't think it was at all obvious he was done for the season at that point.

No. Baylor didn't miss most of the first three months. He started out the season in the lineup and stayed there into early-mid-May, not hitting diddly. Then he took a month-and-a-half off, coming back in late June, and continued to not hit diddly all summer. Yet Fregosi left him in the cleanup spot until finally giving it up at the end of August.

I don't think it was at all obvious on July 1 or August 1, 1980 that Baylor would not with power for the rest of the year

On July 1 Baylor was hitting 250/364/315 in 132 PAs. On August 1 he was hitting 248/332/348 in 245 PAs. That's very close to half a season's worth of data, and it was consistently diddly.

On edit: my objection has nothing to do with Joe Carter and everything to do with what you're trying to say OPS+ is and is not. I would have less of a problem if you had said, "I believe Carter is overrated generally, and this study is giving one piece of evidence toward that conclusion." Either that or say that OPS+ is, in fact, the end-all and be-all. Just looking for consistency.

I'm not trying to make any grand conclusion about OPS+. This article, as you well know, isn't intended or presented as a "study." It's part of a series that has a little fun by identifying the regular players with the lowest OPS+ at each position in the batting order from 1957 through 2007.

On July 1 Baylor was hitting 250/364/315 in 132 PAs. On August 1 he was hitting 248/332/348 in 245 PAs.

That's not entirely fair - his terrible first three months are being counted in both of these breakdowns. For the month of July, he slugged .382 in 112 PAs, which is obviously still well below Baylor's MVP level of the year before, but, given that he had all of 55 PA combined in May and June, it's not entirely implausible to see his July numbers as indicating that he was slowly regaining his hitting stroke. In retrospect, of course, this was wrong, as he slugged .313 in August and then got only 15 PAs in Sept/Oct, but you are talking about the defending MVP here.

Joe Carter was, for most of his career, an above average hitter. Not a superstar like some thought, but not nearly as bad as Steve is making him out to be. His OPS+, starting in 1986: 130, 104, 117, 110, 85, 125, 119, 112, 113. Again, no superstar, but he wasn't Mario Mendoza out there. He didn't walk a lot, and he was overrated, so sabermetric types hate him, but he really wasn't that bad for much of his career. He had a couple of bad seasons, particularly at the end, but in total, he wasn't anything like the worst clean-up man in the past fifty years.

But in considering Carter as a cleanup hitter, we aren't comparing him to league-average hitters. We're comparing him to other cleanup hitters.

Joe Carter was the starting cleanup hitter in his team's lineup 955 times, garnering over 4,000 PAs. He started in the #3 spot an additional 831 times; all told he was given nearly 7,800 PAs as either a third-place hitter or a fourth-place hitter.

Is there another hitter in the past fifty years who got anything close to that much playing time in the heart of the order, who didn't perform significantly better?

For the month of July, he slugged .382 in 112 PAs, which is obviously still well below Baylor's MVP level of the year before, but, given that he had all of 55 PA combined in May and June, it's not entirely implausible to see his July numbers as indicating that he was slowly regaining his hitting stroke.

He slugged .382? You're going with that as an indication that he was coming around?

The 1980 AL league SLG for cleanup hitters was .460, and July was (as it typically is) the best-hitting month of the year. A .382 SLG from a cleanup hitter in July of 1980 was dismal.

Is there another hitter in the past fifty years who got anything close to that much playing time in the heart of the order, who didn't perform significantly better?

Dante Bichette?

edit: Dante had approx. 5600 PA hitting 3rd, 4th and 5th. Not anywhere close, but the closest I could find in a few minutes.

Is there another hitter in the past fifty years who got anything close to that much playing time in the heart of the order, who didn't perform significantly better?

Possibly not, but most players who get 7800 PA in the third and fourth hole are damned good. Carter was an exception - he was above average as a hitter, but no star. On the other hand, I'm guessing he was a lot better than many hitters who batted clean-up for two or three thousand PA.

On July 1 Baylor was hitting 250/364/315 in 132 PAs. On August 1 he was hitting 248/332/348 in 245 PAs. That's very close to half a season's worth of data, and it was consistently diddly.

So what would have you recommended Fregosi do? Sit the reigning MVP on the bench for the second half of the season? Bat him (a DH) eighth? Assume that he's never going to regain his stroke, even if Baylor says he's feeling better?

Baylor missed much of the first half of the season injured, said he was feeling better, and was ready to play. What other options did Fregosi have?

I'm a little confused about how somebody can open an article with, "This isn't a serious 'study.' It's just for fun," and then proceed to make definitive statements about the overall quality of players like, "Indeed he was, as indicated here, repeatedly performing as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century."

I don't see how they're mutually exclusive. The idea of looking up the worst #4 hitters of all-time is just a fun excersize. But you can come to definite conclusions about players in the process of it.

Cutting & pasting my post from ballhype:

The 1992 Angels were pretty impressive. Their #4 slot had a sOPS+ of 41 (!) the worst since 1956.

Their main clean-up hitter was Hubie Brooks (Hubie Brooks?!?!). A 35-year-old Hubie Brooks. He hit 215/247/347 in that slot.

Their next most common clean up hitter was Gary Gaetti. He was even worse, going 185/220/325.

Their third most frequent clean-up hitter was even worse still, going 172/209/253.

As bad as Brooks was, he had the best OPS of anyone with 5 or more PA in the cleanup slot - yet he was still under 600.

Overall, their clean up hitters had an OPS of 545. Meanwhile, on that very team, Gary DiSarcina posted a mark of 584.

OUCH!

most players who get 7800 PA in the third and fourth hole are damned good. Carter was an exception - he was above average as a hitter, but no star.

Exactly. Yet he got star-level playing time, and star-level honors and plaudits.

So what would have you recommended Fregosi do? Sit the reigning MVP on the bench for the second half of the season? Bat him (a DH) eighth? Assume that he's never going to regain his stroke, even if Baylor says he's feeling better?

Baylor missed much of the first half of the season injured, said he was feeling better, and was ready to play. What other options did Fregosi have?

Um, he's the manager. He makes out the lineup card each day. He had options such as batting Baylor 5th, 6th, 7th ... he had all sorts of choices. And among the things a manager is accountable to do is to make decisions, often hard decisions, even if they aren't what a given player would believe, advocate or prefer.

I'm not trying to make any grand conclusion about OPS+. This article, as you well know, isn't intended or presented as a "study." It's part of a series that has a little fun by identifying the regular players with the lowest OPS+ at each position in the batting order from 1957 through 2007.

But it is titled "The 10 Worst Cleanup Hitters Since 1957," which at the very least implies that OPS+ (in your opinion) defines who are the worst candidates overall.

Obviously an OPS+ of 99 underrates what he has done for the Braves offense

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows RBI are MEANINGLESS!

But it is titled "The 10 Worst Cleanup Hitters Since 1957," which at the very least implies that OPS+ (in your opinion) defines who are the worst candidates overall.

Holy cow ... I don't know how the opening paragraphs in each of the articles in this series could be any more clear in specifically acknowledging the limitations of OPS+ as a metric and as a ranking tool.

Has everyone somehow lost their sense of whimsy?

It's ... for ... fun.

Has everyone somehow lost their sense of whimsy?

yes

As a Jays fan Carter will always hold a special place thanks to 1993 (now that was the way to end the Jays decade of contention) but geez did he stick in the #4 hole way too much.

Slg% over 500: 3 times in his career, peak of 524
Top 10 in Slg%: 3 times in his career, 2 6th's and a 10th place

However...
100+ RBI: 10 times with 13 seasons where he played enough to have a shot at it, one of the misses was a 98 RBI season

Carter just somehow found himself on teams with very good #1/2/3 hitters for OBP (Brett Butler/Julio Franco in Cleveland, Roberts/Alomar/Gwynn in SD, White/Alomar/Molitor in Toronto) OK, White wasn't too good but did reach 340 a couple of times and Alomar/Molitor were OBP machines in Toronto.

Maybe Carter, pre-strike, was the right guy in the right place at the right time. The Jays had a lot of solid hitters but sometimes you need someone to clean the table so to speak. Of course, that might just the frustrated Jay fan speaking (223-312-314 this year with RISP and that is a big improvement over a week or so ago).

I see Steve is ducking Vlad's criticism. Ol' Penitentiary Face, Steve.

Has everyone somehow lost their sense of whimsy?

Yes, ever since Barry Bonds robbed our national innocence.

The next time someone tells you that the RBI statistic isn’t really all that overrated, and hasn’t really served to cause people to misperceive the actual value of ballplayers, just answer with these two words: Joe Carter.

Yeah, but I love the big lug just the same.

It's funny though--his RBI caused him to be overrated but his OBP is now causing him to be underrated. He was a solid defender and baserunner, made good throws and had very few mental mistakes--his head was generally in the game.

He also rarely GIDP ... among players with at least 9000 PA he isn't even among the top 300.

Plus he was incredibly durable.

Best Regards

John

Um, he's the manager. He makes out the lineup card each day. He had options such as batting Baylor 5th, 6th, 7th ... he had all sorts of choices. And among the things a manager is accountable to do is to make decisions, often hard decisions, even if they aren't what a given player would believe, advocate or prefer.

If you're going to bat Baylor 7th, why play him at all? If you absolutely know that Baylor isn't going to regain his power, why play him at all? He's the DH!

Look at the facts. Baylor misses most of May and June with an injury (this is a fact, not an opinion). He comes back at the end of the month. He then plays in July, and struggles. And from this, you somehow know, with absolute certainty, that he won't regain his stroke for the rest of the season, just because he struggles for one month when returning from the injury?

Steve, I believe you are engaging in 20/20 hindsight, thinking that Fregosi should have known something that was absolutely unknowable at the time. The fact that a player struggles for a month when coming back from an injury does not guarantee that he is done for the year.

My park adjusted whimsy percentage with hitters in nostalgia position is at 102.

ah, WAMCO.

How did Greg Vaughan not make the list?

I see Steve is ducking Vlad's criticism. Ol' Penitentiary Face, Steve.

Penitentiary Face is a better nickname, but he was better known as Hackman.

In 1997 Carter had these splits (according to BBREF):
High Leverage: .275/.357/.442
Low Leverage: .214/.251/.349

His career tOPS+ with RISP was 111
with no one on it was 97.

1996 another bad OPS+ year he hit .276/.353/.534 with RISP and .238/.278/.428 with no one on.

So, what you are telling me is that Joe Carter was CLUTCH!!!!!

George Bell didn't have enough ABs to qualify, he was pretty awful for the 1993 White Sox:

Bell .217-.243-.363 (OPS+ 63)
63 games at #4
34 games at #5

Ugggh. Meanwhile Sosa was putting up 33 HRs and an OPS+ of 111 as a 24-year old CF on the North Side. Ugggh.

Ah, Jim Presley. Those were some dark days. Some nice symmetry there with Dale Murphy and Andruw Jones so close together.

If you're going to bat Baylor 7th, why play him at all?

Well, not playing him at all was certainly among the many valid alternatives available to Fregosi, as opposed to batting him 4th. But often times it's a good idea with a player working his way back into form from an injury (or attempting to, anyway) to drop him down in the order, simply because that will do less damage to the team's production while the player struggles to get it going.

And from this, you somehow know, with absolute certainty, that he won't regain his stroke for the rest of the season, just because he struggles for one month when returning from the injury?

I don't know it with absolute certainty. But a month of struggling after attempting a comeback from the injury, when combined with a month-and-a-half of struggling (at near-identical rates, BTW) before having sat down to see if the injury would respond to rest, is, yes, a pretty fair indication that maybe a complete turnaround isn't right around the corner. It's exactly the sort of situation that suggests maybe dropping the guy down from cleanup for a while, if not sitting him back down, might not be a terrible idea.

I see Steve is ducking Vlad's criticism. Ol' Penitentiary Face, Steve.

Don't go all One Flap Down on me now, Flynn.

He was a solid defender and baserunner, made good throws and had very few mental mistakes--his head was generally in the game.

All true. Indeed, as the article says:

Yes, he was remarkably durable, yes, he was a "gamer," yes, he ran the bases quite well for a big man. All told he was a good ballplayer, a fine guy to have on your team.

He was a good ballplayer, and I'd gladly take him on my team.

But he wasn't a good #4 or #3 hitter, and in fact he wasn't a star-caliber performer overall. He was a good ballplayer, but it's this part:

He was named to the All-Star team five times, was voted the Silver Slugger Award twice, and received MVP votes in eight separate seasons, including two top-five finishes.

That was completely gaga, utterly at odds with keen assessment.

Oh I agree Steve ... to me he would've been perfect in the five-hole. His lack of GIDP due to his fly ball tendencies and speed would have been useful and would prolong rallies.

Of course, the Jays won back-to-back WS with Joe batting third so I guess I haven't got many complaints coming.

I miss Joe.

Best Regards

John

5 all-star games and two Silver Sluggers for Carter is a lot, but I don't know that it's totally unheard of compared to what some other average guys have done. Carlos Lee has 2 of each. Cal Ripken went to the all-star game 7 times with an OPS+ below 100 and 4 of those were as a 3rd baseman. Dean Palmer got a couple Silver Sluggers as a pretty pedestrian 3rd baseman. Marty Marion made 8 All-Star games with a career OPS+ of 81. Sure he was a shortstop, but that couldn't have been good even for a SS back then. Catfish Hunter made 8 all-star games with a career ERA+ of 104. Bichette made 4 games and won one Silver Slugger. Vince Coleman made 2 all-star games (and they weren't even his 100 steal years).

I think Carter was overrated, but not to the extent that no one else ever was. I mean, people are still agitating to get Dave Concepcion into the Hall of Fame. And Juan Pierre finishing 10th in the MVP voting once seems a heck of a lot weirder than Carter finishing 3rd.

Of course, the Jays won back-to-back WS with Joe batting third so I guess I haven't got many complaints coming.

Damn straight! And, of course, it's the case that the Jays won those flags despite Carter's performance in the #3 slot, not because of it.

to me he would've been perfect in the five-hole.

Fifth or sixth is the appropriate spot for a guy like Carter. Even better yet, and obviously this is a luxury that not many teams have, but his talent profile was ideal as an outfield-first base supersub type, sitting down against the better RHP.

I think Carter was overrated, but not to the extent that no one else ever was.

Yes, many players have been overrated. That doesn't make Carter less so.

Yes, many players have been overrated. That doesn't make Carter less so.

True, but it makes the overrating of him much less egregious. You said something about how he received superstar type accolades, when in fact there have been many players who weren't superstars who received similar accolades.

Even better yet, and obviously this is a luxury that not many teams have, but his talent profile was ideal as an outfield-first base supersub type, sitting down against the better RHP.

So now he should have been a backup? I don't know that a guy who played 16 seasons at a basically league average for a corner outfielder level (using OPS+, which of course isn't ideal for a low OBP guy like Carter) is only a backup. That seems like hyperbole.

Of course, the Jays won back-to-back WS with Joe batting third so I guess I haven't got many complaints coming.

Damn straight! And, of course, it's the case that the Jays won those flags despite Carter's performance in the #3 slot, not because of it.

I think his point was more along the lines of: how much better could they have done when they won the World Series both those years? It's like Branch Rickey's famous saying about finishing last, but the opposite. Sure, Carter wasn't great either of those years but he was also far from the worst hitter on the team, so was he really the problem?


Also, I thought batting order was supposed to not matter very much in the grand scheme of things?

But often times it's a good idea with a player working his way back into form from an injury (or attempting to, anyway) to drop him down in the order, simply because that will do less damage to the team's production while the player struggles to get it going.

Do you think the Yankees should bat ARod seventh when he returns? How about if he struggles for a week or two - then they should bat him seventh until he proves he can hit? And do you think Girardi is an idiot if he bats him in the clean up spot? Or is he only an idiot if he continues to bat him clean-up after struggling for one month?

Is there a different rate stat that would suggest that he wasn't, as indicated by OPS+, repeatedly performing as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century?

This statement is completely gaga, utterly at odds with keen assessment. Carter was generally an above average hitter who had a couple of bad years, far from "repeatedly performing" as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century.

To follow up on my last point about batting order not mattering much, 'The Book' says that batting the pitcher 4th instead of 9th would only cost a team 15 runs per season. Obviously, no matter how much one hates Joe Carter, he never hit nearly as poorly as the average pitcher does.

True, but it makes the overrating of him much less egregious. You said something about how he received superstar type accolades, when in fact there have been many players who weren't superstars who received similar accolades.

I'm not sure any of the examples you listed are precisely similar to the case of Carter. But even if they are, that just makes those as egregious as that of Carter.

So now he should have been a backup? I don't know that a guy who played 16 seasons at a basically league average for a corner outfielder level (using OPS+, which of course isn't ideal for a low OBP guy like Carter) is only a backup. That seems like hyperbole.

"Supersub" is not a synonym for "backup."

And the fact is that when Carter was capable of handling center field, the 110-ish OPS+ kind of offense he provided was a distinct asset. But once he became a corner outfielder-first baseman, then that kind of offense wasn't anything special. Indeed it was a level and type of offensive production that is better off blended with others at those positions, rather than just left in the lineup 160 games a year.

I think his point was more along the lines of: how much better could they have done when they won the World Series both those years?

Obviously a team can't accomplish a higher victory than the WS. But at the same time it's a fallacy to say that since a team won the WS, they couldn't have been better than they were.

Also, I thought batting order was supposed to not matter very much in the grand scheme of things?

I don't know whether it's "supposed to" or not, but in fact batting order doesn't matter very much in the grand scheme of things. "Very much" isn't the same as "at all."

I'm a bit taken aback by how testy folks seem to be here today ... did I miss a memo or something?

Carter was generally an above average hitter who had a couple of bad years, far from "repeatedly performing" as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century.

On the list of the 27 lowest OPS+ figures presented by all hitters batting cleanup in at least one-half of their team's games between 1957 and 2007, Joe Carter's name appears three times. No other player makes that list more than once.

Take OPS+ as the imperfect metric of hitting performance that it is, and further acknowledge its limitations in assessing cleanup hitter performance. Knock yourself out spinning and rationalizing. It remains that Joe Carter repeatedly performed as one of the very worst cleanup hitters in the second half of the 20th century.

I'm a bit taken aback by how testy folks seem to be here today ... did I miss a memo or something?

Joe Carter is the Derek Jeter of his generation. I guess.

Maybe someone could settle this by running a sim of Joe Carter vs. Mark Grace with all other things equal and tell us how it works out.

And, of course, it's the case that the Jays won those flags despite Carter's performance in the #3 slot, not because of it.

Everybody knows they won in '92 because of Jack Morris.

On July 1 Baylor was hitting 250/364/315 in 132 PAs. On August 1 he was hitting 248/332/348 in 245 PAs. That's very close to half a season's worth of data, and it was consistently diddly.

Ryan Howard is hitting .187/.290/.404 after 193 PAs. When should he be benched?

Ryan Howard is hitting .187/.290/.404 after 193 PAs. When should he be benched?

Is Howard attempting to play through a wrist injury that's already caused him to miss more than a month? Has his performance since resting the injury shown no improvement over how badly he was doing when we first sat him down?

And, is there no middle ground between batting cleanup every day and being "benched?"

I don't even care about Joe Carter, I just think that he wasn't as terrible as he's being made out to be. Was he great? No. Was he good? Maybe not. Was he terrible? No.

As for the Blue Jays, if they could have been better, wouldn't the obvious place to improve have been 3rd base or catcher? Those positions were terrible both of their World Series years while Carter was actually above average for a corner guy both years. You are messing up the analysis by lumping corner outfielders in with 1st basmen. Average corner outfielders hit more like CFs or 3rd basemen than they do 1st basemen.

If we were talking about Carter as a 1st baseman I would agree that he was pretty bad. However, he only really saw significant time there in 2 seasons. As a corner OF, he wasn't that horrendous and until he turned 35 he actually had pretty good value.

In terms of batting order, if the difference between batting the pitcher 9th or 4th is 15 runs per season, what would the difference between batting Joe Carter 4th or 6th be? 2 runs? 3? Joe Carter was not the problem in 1992 or 1993 and the Jays hardly won "in spite" of him.


And now being a supersub isn't the same as being a backup? OK, where are the Gold Glove or Silver Slugger awards for supersubs? Where is the spot on the All-Star ballot?

Ryan Howard is hitting .187/.290/.404 after 193 PAs. When should he be benched?
He has picked it up quite a bit in the last week or so. Had his .160/.250/.350 or whatever continued, I'm sure Charlie would have sat him for a couple of days, especially against the 5 straight lefty starters that they faced.

Is Howard attempting to play through a wrist injury that's already caused him to miss more than a month? Has his performance since resting the injury shown no improvement over how badly he was doing when we first sat him down?

I get it - its not Howard that you think should be benched. Its ARod, if he struggles at all upon returning. Or at least moved down to seventh in the lineup within a couple of weeks.

And, is there no middle ground between batting cleanup every day and being "benched?"

As has been pointed out many times, the difference between hitting fourth and sixth is almost negligable on a team. No one is killing his team by hitting fourth rather than sixth.

I don't even care about Joe Carter, I just think that he wasn't as terrible as he's being made out to be. Was he great? No. Was he good? Maybe not.

I disagree. He was good.

That doesn't mean he was appropriately deployed, and his performance properly assessed, over the course of his career.

As for the Blue Jays, if they could have been better, wouldn't the obvious place to improve have been 3rd base or catcher?

That the Blue Jays might have been improved in one or two or sixteen other ways doesn't mean that they wouldn't also have been improved with a better hitter than Carter in the #3 slot.

If we were talking about Carter as a 1st baseman I would agree that he was pretty bad. However, he only really saw significant time there in 2 seasons.

More to the point, he only saw significant action in CF in three of his 16 seasons. In the other 13, he was some combination of corner outfielder/first baseman/DH.

As a corner OF, he wasn't that horrendous and until he turned 35 he actually had pretty good value

Unfortunately, he was deployed as a full-time regular in three seasons, and semi-regular in a fourth, after turning 35. And good luck finding where I've characterized him as "horrendous."

And now being a supersub isn't the same as being a backup?

No. I apologize if you aren't familiar with my usage of the term, but "supersub" generally means a player in the starting lineup most days, deployed alternately at two or more different positions.

the difference between hitting fourth and sixth is almost negligable on a team.

"Almost" isn't a synonym for "completely," which is why teams deploy their players in a specified batting order, rather than randomly, or alphabetically, or in some other manner which pretends that the order has no impact on run production.

Which is why it is the case that deploying a player in the cleanup slot for more than half of a season in which he produces an OPS+ as low as 88 (Joe Carter, 1995), 85 (Joe Carter, 1990), 83 (Don Baylor, 1980), or 77 (Joe Carter, 1997) is exceptionally unusual.

Bengie Molina has a chance to make this list... current OPS+ 91

If you're going to bat Baylor 7th, why play him at all? If you absolutely know that Baylor isn't going to regain his power, why play him at all? He's the DH!

Look at the facts. Baylor misses most of May and June with an injury (this is a fact, not an opinion). He comes back at the end of the month. He then plays in July, and struggles. And from this, you somehow know, with absolute certainty, that he won't regain his stroke for the rest of the season, just because he struggles for one month when returning from the injury?

Steve, I believe you are engaging in 20/20 hindsight, thinking that Fregosi should have known something that was absolutely unknowable at the time. The fact that a player struggles for a month when coming back from an injury does not guarantee that he is done for the year.

Have you looked at the rest of that team? Sure, a .382 SLP is dismal, but who else you gonna put in the cleanup spot? Jason Thompson was a terrific hitter and the best on the team that year, but he missed 60 games, and batted 5th to Baylor's 4th in only 34 games, with most of those coming right after Baylor returned. Joe Rudi at .417 SLP isn't a whole lot better than Baylor at .382, and he missed as many games as Thompson. Baylor and Rudi were in the same lineup (post injury), only 26 times. That leaves Bobby Grich and Rod Carew as the only other regulars over .400 SLP.

Which is why it is the case that deploying a player in the cleanup slot for more than half of a season in which he produces an OPS+ as low as 88 (Joe Carter, 1995), 85 (Joe Carter, 1990), 83 (Don Baylor, 1980), or 77 (Joe Carter, 1997) is exceptionally unusual.

Half a season is 81 games. Baylor reach that mark on Aug 25. He played 9 more games all year, only 4 of them at cleanup.

Have you looked at the rest of that team? Sure, a .382 SLP is dismal, but who else you gonna put in the cleanup spot?

.382 wasn't Baylor's SLG over the full season. It was his SLG in his best month, when he was hot. His overall SLG was .341.

Players on the 1980 Angels who had a better SLG than .341:

Rod Carew, Bobby Grich, Carney Lansford, Freddie Patek (!), Joe Rudi, Larry Harlow, Jason Thompson, and Dan Ford.

All these players had a better OPS than Baylor, as well as Rick Miller, whose SLG of .337 was barely lower than Baylor's.

Obviously no manager knows the exact stats his players will have at the end of the season. But the notion that Fregosi had no plausible alternative other than to stoically stick with Baylor through his painful struggle is nuts. The 1980 Angels had a team OPS+ of 98; it wasn't a bad-hitting team. Baylor's performance was a clear and distinct problem.

Half a season is 81 games. Baylor reach that mark on Aug 25. He played 9 more games all year, only 4 of them at cleanup.

Well, excuse me for having the audacity to have chosen half a season as the arbitrary cutoff point to consider a player as the regular in a given spot in the order. Sorry, but I did.

And among all the players who have played at least half a season (which is 81 games in a full season, but I included the lesser numbers from strike-shortened seasons here too) in the cleanup spot between 1957 and 2007, Baylor's 83 OPS+ in 1980 is the seventh-worst.

Many have tried, but few have succeeded at sucking as bad in that that lineup slot as Baylor/Fregosi pulled off in 1980.

.382 wasn't Baylor's SLG over the full season. It was his SLG in his best month, when he was hot. His overall SLG was .341.

Players on the 1980 Angels who had a better SLG than .341:

Rod Carew, Bobby Grich, Carney Lansford, Freddie Patek (!), Joe Rudi, Larry Harlow, Jason Thompson, and Dan Ford.

All these players had a better OPS than Baylor, as well as Rick Miller, whose SLG of .337 was barely lower than Baylor's.

Obviously no manager knows the exact stats his players will have at the end of the season. But the notion that Fregosi had no plausible alternative other than to stoically stick with Baylor through his painful struggle is nuts. The 1980 Angels had a team OPS+ of 98; it wasn't a bad-hitting team. Baylor's performance was a clear and distinct problem.

But again, that's results based analysis.

Fregosi is an idiot because he put Baylor incleanup after a dismal start and an injury time out because he didn't improve that much upon return.

Is Charlie manual an equal idiot for putting the .206 hitting Ryan Howard back at cleanup after his return from injury last year? Because Manuel had much better options than Fregosi.

Thanks Steve, entertaining article. You included plenty of qualifiers about the limits of OPS+ and that Carter was not a bad ballplayer, and that the article wasn't intended to be an in-depth study. I don't get the negative criticism either.

Here's what I wrote:

His selection as AL MVP in 1979 was pretty silly, but Baylor had delivered an outstanding season as the Angels' cleanup hitter. So it was completely reasonable for manager Jim Fregosi to start out 1980 with Baylor in the role.

What wasn't so reasonable was that Fregosi stuck with Baylor even as it became abundantly obvious that the wrist injury that was plaguing Baylor that season had thoroughly drained his power. Baylor's utter lack of production in the heart of the Angels' lineup was a key reason for their collapse from a division-winner in '79 to a 65-95, sixth-place disaster in 1980.

And here's your interpretation:

Fregosi is an idiot because he put Baylor incleanup after a dismal start and an injury time out because he didn't improve that much upon return.

I think it was reasonable for Fregosi to give Baylor the benefit of the doubt as the cleanup hitter at the outset of the season, despite the fact that he was hurt. But, no, I don't think it was reasonable for Fregosi to then stick with Fregosi at cleanup for more than two full months of sucky performance after he'd returned from his six weeks of rest to attempt to ameliorate the symptoms that had already caused a month of sucky performance.

No, I don't. And, yes, I do think the fact that in half a century's worth of team-seasons, only a handful of regular cleanup hitters have performed worse is relevant to consider in this regard.

Is Charlie manual an equal idiot for putting the .206 hitting Ryan Howard back at cleanup after his return from injury last year? Because Manuel had much better options than Fregosi.

I really don't know whether Manuel is "an equal idiot." But I do know that in his career so far Howard has never put together a 380-PA stretch remotely as bad as Baylor did in 1980.

Thanks Steve, entertaining article. You included plenty of qualifiers about the limits of OPS+ and that Carter was not a bad ballplayer, and that the article wasn't intended to be an in-depth study. I don't get the negative criticism either.

Why, thank you.

Nice to see that not everyone is drinking that batch of extra-sour lemonade! :-)

pologize if you aren't familiar with my usage of the term, but "supersub" generally means a player in the starting lineup most days, deployed alternately at two or more different positions.

I'm well aware of what supersub means, I'm a Brewer fan after all (Bill Hall). However, a guy who starts 50-60 games at first/DH and 50-60 in the outfield is definitely a backup, in my mind. If what you meant by "sitting against the better RH" is something less than 30-40 games off per year, I don't know what it could mean. If you are saying he should have started 150 games at OF/1st, why is that different than just starting 150-160 in the OF?

Nice to see that not everyone is drinking that batch of extra-sour lemonade! :-)

So people that disagree with you about the extent that batting a less than ideal player 4th instead of 6th hurts a team don't have a legit argument but instead are chemically altered is some way. Nice. I get why you wrote the article, its interesting and I've enjoyed the series. However, I thought we were supposed to discuss baseball on this site, not just praise the author of whatever articles happen to be linked to.

Fun series of articles!

I enjoyed getting prompted, by the article and this discussion, to look up the splits option on B-Ref (which I hadn't gotten around to before--neat!) and check out Carter. Looks like he was about a 107 OPS+ batting 4th and 3rd, which was the vast majority of his career. That does seem extremely humdrum (contradiction in terms?) for the glamor part of the order.

He had about a 117 OPS+ with RISP. I *think* I've often read that players generally do better then? Do I misremember?

Somebody mentioned Grace. Most of his career was also batting 3rd and 4th, though more than 2/3 of that was 3rd. Much better OPS+. Also hit better with RISP.

"Is there another hitter in the past fifty years who got anything close to that much playing time in the heart of the order, who didn't perform significantly better?"

Have we come up with anybody?

Two questions about RBI% (RBI vs RBI opportunities)
One, is that stuff listed on the web?
Two, can DMB be made to tell RBI opportunities or RBI% for a player, like thru Trilogy? I looked into it some but didn't come up with anything.

And among all the players who have played at least half a season (which is 81 games in a full season, but I included the lesser numbers from strike-shortened seasons here too) in the cleanup spot between 1957 and 2007, Baylor's 83 OPS+ in 1980 is the seventh-worst.

Many have tried, but few have succeeded at sucking as bad in that that lineup slot as Baylor/Fregosi pulled off in 1980.

Well, Baylor's case was...uncommon. You have the reigning MVP, on a team pretty much bereft of power, on paper anyway. You start off the season batting him 4th, and he gets off to a...slow start. Question: Was he chronically injured all along or did he suffer an acute injury on May 9? Anyway, by early May he's hitting .250/.355/.315 and goes on the DL. In his absence, the cleanup duties are first assumed by Dan Ford, who was equally dismal (Ford, slugging .310 on May 9 goes on the DL May 28 slugging .322), and then newly acquired Jason Thompson, who raises his SLP from .362 to .390 in Baylor's absence.

Now Baylor returns. Surely his upside is better than .390 SLP, no? Is Fregosi at that point supposed to know it isn't? I mean, it's not like Baylor was replacing Reggie Jackson. In his month as the cleanup hitter, Thompson hit 2 HR.

So Baylor is plugged into the cleanup spot and hits as well as his replacements did, while Thompson goes on an unexpected tear. Well, that's a relative term. From Jun 26 till Baylor is moved out of the cleanup slot on Aug 31, Thompson raised his SLP from .390 to .459. The only other viable alternative was Joe Rudi, who slugged about .320 in July/Aug. Yeah, in retrospect, Bobby Grich would have been better, but he had just finished the month of June slugging under .300.

I don't disagree with your position that baylor was a horrible cleanup hitter in 1980. I just think he should be treated like Orestes Destrade in the "Waddya going to do?" or "#### happens" category.

But, no, I don't think it was reasonable for Fregosi to then stick with Fregosi at cleanup for more than two full months of sucky performance after he'd returned from his six weeks of rest to attempt to ameliorate the symptoms that had already caused a month of sucky performance.

OK, fine. Baylor returns on June 26. At that point, the only reasonable options at cleanup are Jason Thompson, Joe Rudi, or Bobby Grich. Dan Ford is gone and won't return until Aug. Thompson is currently slugging .390 and hit 2 HR in his 1 month stint at cleanup. Joe Rudi is slugging .465, but he would have been worse than Baylor, as he slugged .313 and .333 in July and August. Bobby Grich is slugging .365, and is coming off a month with 2 XBH (0 HR), and slugging .294. He rebounded nicely in July and August.

So, the choices are:

The new guy, currently slugging .390 who hit all of 2 HR in his month in the cleanup spot.
The veteran, currently slugging .465, but who would hit much worse than Baylor the rest of the year.
The secondbaseman mired in a horrible slump.
or the reigning MVP, hopefully fully healed.

Baylor may have not been the best choice, at least on paper. That would have been Rudi, who would have given worse results. But he was a reasonably and defendable choice. Sticking with him for the full 2 months may not be as reasonable, but now we're down to quibbling over a couple of weeks.

Sticking with him for the full 2 months may not be as reasonable, but now we're down to quibbling over a couple of weeks.

At which point, it should be noted, that the Angels were hopelessly out of the pennant race, and they were (or should have been) focused on the upcoming year anyway. So there wasn't any harm done at all.

At which point, it should be noted, that the Angels were hopelessly out of the pennant race, and they were (or should have been) focused on the upcoming year anyway. So there wasn't any harm done at all.

Right. By say Aug 1, they were 24 games out. Hell, by June 26, Baylor's return, there were 17 games out, having dropped 12.5 games in the standings while he was out.

I'm well aware of what supersub means

Then you realize that it doesn't equate to "backup," but instead you leaped to that characterization.

a guy who starts 50-60 games at first/DH and 50-60 in the outfield is definitely a backup, in my mind.

That would be 100-120 starts, or somewhere around two-thirds to three-quarters of the time in the starting lineup, garnering 450-500 PAs as a starter. I don't know why your mind insists on interpreting such a status as "definitely a backup," since, well, it isn't.

If what you meant by "sitting against the better RH" is something less than 30-40 games off per year, I don't know what it could mean.

I don't either. "Sitting against the better RHP" wouldn't have much meaning unless it meant sitting at least 30 games per year, would it.

So people that disagree with you about the extent that batting a less than ideal player 4th instead of 6th hurts a team don't have a legit argument but instead are chemically altered is some way.

Um ... that was intended as a little joke. You know? A quip? A jest?

Is it OK to lighten the tone up just a teensy bit here?

Question: Was he chronically injured all along or did he suffer an acute injury on May 9?

IIRC, he was chronically injured all along; I believe he'd been hurt in spring training.

Now Baylor returns. Surely his upside is better than .390 SLP, no? Is Fregosi at that point supposed to know it isn't? I mean, it's not like Baylor was replacing Reggie Jackson. In his month as the cleanup hitter, Thompson hit 2 HR.

Nice job of choosing Thompson's least impressive stat, there. In that month as the cleanup hitter, Thompson also hit 296/431/420. But, nowhere have I said that Fregosi's giving Baylor another shot at the cleanup job was a bad idea; the bad idea was resolutely sticking with that plan through the months of July and August, as Baylor hit 245/295/382 and 252/289/313, while Thompson hit 357/471/619 and 279/430/500.

Baylor may have not been the best choice, at least on paper. That would have been Rudi, who would have given worse results. But he was a reasonably and defendable choice. Sticking with him for the full 2 months may not be as reasonable, but now we're down to quibbling over a couple of weeks.

No, it would have been Thompson.

But, look. Quibble to your heart's content. I find it interesting that this batting order decision of Fregosi's is one that, on the one hand, is dismissed as trivial, and on the other is vociferously defended.

Myself, I see it (and did so at the time) as a rather poor decision that had a poor outcome and could reasonably have been modified at least several weeks before it was. Perhaps it's a function of my own bias; I thought at the time that Baylor's MVP win in '79 was unjustified, and morevoer that he wasn't even as good a hitter as he'd shown in 1979, and so that not only the MVP voters but the Angels themselves were seeing him as this newfound superstar when in fact he wasn't. He was just a good-but-not-great hitter who didn't deserve all that much deference.

He had about a 117 OPS+ with RISP. I *think* I've often read that players generally do better then? Do I misremember?

You don't misremember. Most hitters hit better than their overall total with RISP (indeed, with runners on at all); the league average is higher with RISP than overall. This is, of course, a function of the fact that RISP is a result of either (a) a weaker-than-average pitcher on the mound, (b) a pitcher having a bad inning/day, or (c) both.

You don't misremember. Most hitters hit better than their overall total with RISP (indeed, with runners on at all); the league average is higher with RISP than overall. This is, of course, a function of the fact that RISP is a result of either (a) a weaker-than-average pitcher on the mound, (b) a pitcher having a bad inning/day, or (c) both.

Do pitchers generally perform worse from the stretch than from the windup, or is that not true?

Good article, loved some of your comments. Kinda sad seeing Aramis at the top spot, but he's since rebounded and has been a very good player for some time now, it's probably rare to see a youngster to get in tha spot and left there when he was clearly struggling, veterans I understand, but young player with a break out season that is looking like his previous season was probably a fluke really shouldn't be left in the lineup.

Do pitchers generally perform worse from the stretch than from the windup, or is that not true?

If the league-average hitter hits better with runners on, then by definition the league-average pitcher performs worse from the stretch than from the windup.

Moreover, if pitching from the windup wasn't the most effective mode, then pitchers wouldn't use it as the default motion when no runners are on.

I understand the logic of some relief pitchers who always pitch from the stretch, that in their mode of usage they're very frequently going to be working out of the stretch anyway, and so why mess with the different mechanics of the windup, but I don't think I would advocate that. The windup was developed and has persisted for over 100 years for a reason.

Kinda sad seeing Aramis at the top spot, but he's since rebounded and has been a very good player for some time now, it's probably rare to see a youngster to get in tha spot and left there when he was clearly struggling, veterans I understand, but young player with a break out season that is looking like his previous season was probably a fluke really shouldn't be left in the lineup.

I agree; there's a time to show faith in a young player and have him work through a rough patch, and there's a time to coddle him a little bit. But then these were the Pirates, who haven't seemed to have a clue what to do for about 15 years now.

You covered it Steve, it wasn't just that Ramirez needed to be coddled, it was that he needed to not be playing on one ankle. I'm not one to complain because it was that season that helped the Cubs get Ramirez for 3 bits of string. It's a shame that Ramirez still has a lazy label that's followed him from when he played a season on a broken ankle, but oh well, I'll take that bad with his overwhelming good.

Without having actually read the thread, I should mention that I survived watching Marvell Wynne batting cleanup for the 1990 Cubs at least once. He's gotta be among the worst hitters ever to've hit 4th.

Without having actually read the thread, I should mention that I survived watching Marvell Wynne batting cleanup for the 1990 Cubs at least once. He's gotta be among the worst hitters ever to've hit 4th.

Which allows me to tell one of my favorite baseball stories. I've mentioed it a few times in the past, but this is my cue to mention it again.

1990 - summer. Cubs are batting in the top of the ninth in Montreal, losing. Tying run is on second, with one out. Andre Dawson at the plate, and Marvell Wynne on deck. (Because who else would you put after Dawson but a singles hitter batting around the Mendoza line?)

With first base open, Montreal elects to pitch to Dawson. Fair enough, though he's hitting around .320 with 20 homers in mid-summer. It works for them, and he harmlessly pops up. Then Wynne comes to the plate. He's the Cubs last out. All Montreal needs to do is get Captain .200 out,and they win.

They intentionally walk him. WHAT??!?!? It's the EXACT same scenario they faced Dawson in - but it's Marvell Wynne, not an actual hitter.

It nearly worked for Montreal. Next hitter tapped one to DeSheidlds at second. He picked it up to make the final out.

Then he dropped it. But he picked it up again.

And dropped it again. So he made a mad grab for the ball and picked it up again.

And dropped it again.

Then it rolled through his legs. He fielded that play like manager Buck Rogers strategized the previous at bat.

By the time a special division of ht eMontreal SWAT team had corralled the ball for him, Sandberg had score the tying run. Then Shawon Dunston came up, hit his 20th-century-record-tying 3rd triple of the night, and the Cubs won.

All becasue Montreal feared Marvell Wynne more than Andre Dawson.

WEIRD.

Stupid is as stupid does, Chris.

That is truly weird.

Here's teh game

Sandberg scored the winning, not tying run. Marvell Wynne was a pinch-hitter. For Damingo Ramos. Who had earlier pinch-hit for Dave Clark, the actual #5 hitter that night.

Marvell Wynne on deck. (Because who else would you put after Dawson but a singles hitter batting around the Mendoza line?)

Actually, Wynne was pinch hitting for Domingo Ramos, who had pinch hit for Dave Clark. Why Ramos pinch hit for Clark is anybody's guess.

Why Ramos pinch hit for Clark is anybody's guess.

Well, Clark was an extreme platoon LHB, so pinch-hitting for him against an LHP is understandable ... though why they should have been so cowed by the LHP Steve Frey is questionable, and Domingo freaking Ramos is just ridiculous.

Hey, platoons have persisted 100 years now for a reason. ;-)

That would be 100-120 starts, or somewhere around two-thirds to three-quarters of the time in the starting lineup, garnering 450-500 PAs as a starter. I don't know why your mind insists on interpreting such a status as "definitely a backup," since, well, it isn't.

Ok, tell that to a player who's doing that. Sure it's not exactly being Mike Rivera (who has started 3 or 4 games this year in place of Jason Kendall), but a guy who plays a third of the time at two different positions is not likely to see himself as a starter, imo. I could be mistaken, no doubt, but I think a starter is a guy who plays (assuming good health and not including catchers) 140-150 games a year. A platoon guy/good sub would be 80-120 starts. If you take offense to that notion, that's fine, but I would appreciate you laying off the condescension.