I, for one, like Giambi's public persona (who the heck knows how he is in real life).

Hope he has a nice enough life.

Given that Jason was supposed to be done around April 2005, he's had a pretty good late-career run. He'd be an interesting Hall of Fame debate, if not for the PED stuff. I'm a fan.

It's interesting to see which superstars quit when they aren't really good enough to start anymore, and which ones just sort of hold on and slowly fade out. I wouldn't have guessed Giambi would be the slow fade type.

Some comps for Giambi, given that there aren't a whole lot of truly similar careers:



Notes: one HOFer, Cepeda, and one HOMer, Hernandez (offhand, IIRC). And a bunch of guys whose cases are sometimes debated, which is very good company. And Giambi has a better peak than most of the guys on his list. He has a Rice/Mattingly type peak in the context of an awfully good career. Ultimately, even without PEDs suspicion, I don't think that's enough for the BBWAA to elect him, though. Cepeda (not without drug controversies himself) was elected because he was crucial to a World Championship team. Giambi had the bad timing to be seen as a millstone contract in New York and then watch the Yankees win again as soon as he left. Narrative, schmarrative, from my point of view, but he has few of the intangibles that the BBWAA likes.

Also, a list that has Edgar Martinez as a better fielder than Will Clark is nuts, though one understands how they get that. And EDIT: Edgar's in the HOM too, my bad. EDIT MORE: Clark too. I'm losing it.

the last home run king of his era still playing.

I'd say that Arod kid has been pretty good at the homer-hitting thing.

the last home run king of his era still playing

Alex Rodriguez feels that the author is being loosey-goosey with this statement.

The other Rockies love having Giambi around, and talk a lot about what a great influence he is. They have a promo commercial this year portraying Giambi as the Yoda of the clubhouse.

One funny quirk of Giambi's: When he comes out to hit, he first takes a couple of practice swings right-handed, even though he's of course a left-handed hitter. Never seen anyone else do that.

It is amazing to me he's stayed in Colorado so long/

It's been changed to "one of the last home run kings of his era still playing."

It's interesting to see which superstars quit when they aren't really good enough to start anymore, and which ones just sort of hold on and slowly fade out.

There's at least one other option, as Chipper Jones has demonstrated this year.

Steroids aside, he was a joy to watch and my favorite player on those A's teams. Him joining the Yankees was absolutely devastating.

the last home run king of his era still playing

Alex Rodriguez feels that the author is being loosey-goosey with this statement.

In more ways than one, since Giambi was never a "home run king", in that he never led his league in home runs, whereas Alex led the league 5 times.

He also was, and remains, an enduring icon of the steroid age, the last home run king of his era still playing. The other anti-heroes have either retired or slunk away: Bonds and Sosa, Palmeiro and McGwire, Clemens and Juan Gonzalez. Not Giambi.

David Ortiz also says hello.

David Ortiz was hugging babies and hand-washing lepers while others were shooting up. George Mitchell said so!

Also, a list that has Edgar Martinez as a better fielder than Will Clark is nuts, though one understands how they get that.

That's cuz P-I won't let us use dWAR! Edgar was an average fielder for a DH. :-)

Edgar -9.8 dWAR
Giambi -19.8 (ouch!)
WClark -10.8

Hmmm ... that still doesn't seem right. Edgar does end up with a few more defensive runs given up than Clark but they don't translate to wins at the same rate due to era differences. Maybe that DH penalty still isn't big enough.

You could add Jack Clark to your list: more a RF than 1B but 8200 PA and 137 OPS+ and a hitting profile pretty similar to Giambi. Berkman, Norm Cash, Ortiz (not sure why he's not on your list), Boog. Oh, I guess you were using 8000 PAs as a cut-off. These guys are all close but Giambi does have 1-1.5 seasons on them.

Steroids aside, he was a joy to watch and my favorite player on those A's teams. Him joining the Yankees was absolutely devastating.

I don't know how much people were paying attention in other markets, but that was one of the all-time home-crowd-crushings of the free agent era. I was at his first game back - still the loudest sound I've ever heard in a stadium. Supposedly the fervor of the booing is what caused Jeremy Giambi to go berserk and begin his run toward exile.

Giambi was revered in Oakland. It's a bummer he had to leave, though completely understandable. The game-winning, walk-off HR he hit off Mike Stanton in this game is the most deliriously happy A's crowd moment I was at for that entire run, except perhaps when they clinched in 2000. It would have been awesome if he could have stayed on the A's and given how it went in NYC he probably would have been a lot happier for it, if a little less rich.

I don't know how much people were paying attention in other markets, but that was one of the all-time home-crowd-crushings of the free agent era. I was at his first game back - still the loudest sound I've ever heard in a stadium.

Yes, and Me too: I was in the RF bleachers, sitting next to a HUGE biker-looking guy who spent the whole game just BELLOWING at Giambi.

Edgar -9.8 dWAR
Giambi -19.8 (ouch!)
WClark -10.8

Hmmm ... that still doesn't seem right. Edgar does end up with a few more defensive runs given up than Clark but they don't translate to wins at the same rate due to era differences. Maybe that DH penalty still isn't big enough.


Yeah, that's absurd. The DH penalty should be as big as a really bad 1B.

Giambi clearly had more defensive value than Edgar as DH.

Well, Giambi DH'd about 500 times himself, and Edgar has those 564 games at third. But yeah, the DH penalty still seems too small - it's 5 runs compared to 1B, and Giambi has a few seasons that come out worse than -5 at first.

Well, Giambi DH'd about 500 times himself, and Edgar has those 564 games at third. But yeah, the DH penalty still seems too small - it's 5 runs compared to 1B, and Giambi has a few seasons that come out worse than -5 at first.

I'd say it should be more like -15, on the theory that if the guy could hack 1B at all, and stay healthy, he'd be out there.

The Manny Ramirez/David Ortiz thing really sold me on this. The idea that Ramirez was taking -20 or worse (fielding + pos adj) playing left field while Ortiz only got -15 at DH was laughable, given that Ramirez was only out there b/c Ortiz couldn't even fake a position.

One of my favorite players. I still watch the nightly box scores for him.

The Manny Ramirez/David Ortiz thing really sold me on this. The idea that Ramirez was taking -20 or worse (fielding + pos adj) playing left field while Ortiz only got -15 at DH was laughable, given that Ramirez was only out there b/c Ortiz couldn't even fake a position.

There are two other possibilities: 1) That the Red Sox were not deploying their resources optimally, and in fact Ortiz at 1B would have been better than Ramirez in LF, assuming they had time to find a replacement LF instead of 1B, or 2) The defensive estimates for Ramirez could have been incorrect (which they were, although I think the clearly wrong estimates were much worse than -20, so you may have already accounted for this).

But it's not just Manny. Sheffield is massacred by his lousy defense:

Edgar: 8674 PA, 532 Rbat, -9.8 dWAR, 64.4 WAR
Sheff: 10947 PA, 560 Rbat, -28.6 dWAR, 56 WAR

Edgar had 63 oWAR, Sheff had 76. Both were employed strictly for their bats. Even if you believe that Sheffield cost his team more runs on defense than Edgar would have (it's not unreasonable to think so), it's still the case that it's not really Sheffield's fault that he was in the field all those years if he sucked that bad. Or maybe it is, maybe he insisted on it (and same might be said of Manny, Griffey and others), but it's still not clear why Edgar would be judged a better player.

But it's not necessarily WAR's job to do that. It's job is to measure value, not who was better, and I can't guarantee that Sheffield wasn't less valuable than Edgar. But for HoF purposes, I see no reason not to consider Sheff a more durable version of Edgar and therefore more qualified. That's why I tend to clump 1B/LF/RF/DH into a single pool. Mostly you're talking about players who were indifferent at best on defense and employed strictly for their bats, so pretty much just judge them by their bats. There are exceptions of course (good or terrible defense) and WAR can help us identify some of those.

I'll add this is one minor reason I wish the leagues would use the same DH rule whether it be to get rid of it (my preference) or have it. It doesn't guarantee we won't have these comparison problems but we'd have fewer of them.

According to BB-Ref, the worst season ever, in terms of Fielding Runs, is Adam Dunn, 2009, at -43. Next worst is Matt Kemp (of all people) at -37 in 2010, playing center field. I assume that a DH has to have less defensive value than anyone who actually played a defensive position, because the DH made no defensive plays at all, whereas even Adam Dunn made SOME plays. In fact, even Adam Dunn made many plays, compared to absolute zero, which is what a DH makes. So I use -60 fielding runs in 162 games, right now, when doing Hall of Merit analysis of DH's. Few DH's actually get the whole -60, because they miss at least a few games, but that's my starting point when looking at BB-Ref. I'm not at all sure that even this is sufficient, because BB-Ref's WAR system involves positional adjustments, which should be worse for DH's than for any other position, but I'm not sure how much worse. - Brock Hanke

n fact, even Adam Dunn made many plays, compared to absolute zero, which is what a DH makes. So I use -60 fielding runs in 162 games, right now, when doing Hall of Merit analysis of DH's.

This type of thought completely ignores the concept of replacement value. It's like evaluating hitter performance above baseline of a player who goes 0-650 at the plate. It gives a completely incorrect view of the actual value of the player to the team. Every AL team has a DH, and having one does not cost the team a tremendous number of runs -- it only costs the team the defensive value of the worst player remaining in the field who might have otherwise DHed.

There was a quite a bit of thought going into the DH positional penalty, and while you could argue for a few runs more or less than a 5 penalty compared to a first baseman, anything substantially larger is illogical. A few reasons are: you ignore the true relatively low substitution cost, DHs seem to hit worse than when they play the field, using a larger penalty implies there is much better freely available hitting talent than there actually is, the actual average batting line for DHs is much lower than for 1b, among other reasons. Sheffield, the most penalized defensive player in the history of the game if you believe rfield, wouldn't have had a substantially different WAR if he had been a career DH, which makes sense since if you believe rfield he should have just been made a career DH. The worst players in history by DWAR should have roughly similar numbers to if they had been career DHs, which seems to be the case. Just as you will see a few players with negative WAR, it makes sense you'd see a few players with DWAR worse than if they'd been DHs, because they should have been DHing but weren't just as the sub-replacement players shouldn't have been playing at all.

On a different note, people are far too harsh on Edgar Martinez and treat him like he was a career DH. He spent almost 28% of his career games as an effective third baseman. He winds up with a career DWAR that isn't truly terrible because his negative defensive value DH seasons are partially offset by positive defensive value 3B seasons. I don't see how a 28% solid 3B / 72% DH is all that much worse than a typical 85% 1B / 15% DH career you see out of modern first basemen.

As an example, Manny was -251 rfield+rpos over his career. As a DH, he would have been maybe -225 or -230, well within the margin of error of saying the worst defensive players score about the same as DHs. Clearly to anyone even without statistics in some seasons Manny was below replacement as a fielder and was a misallocated resource who should have been a DH on some team.

It is amazing to me he's stayed in Colorado so long/

Yeah, he's signed two separate FA contracts with the Rockies. Surprised he didn't go back to the AL where he could DH and hit more than a few times a week. As a pinch hitter, I believe that contact guys are generally more valuable than TTO players.

I typed into Google: jason g

And Jason Grilli came up before Jason Giambi.

There was a quite a bit of thought going into the DH positional penalty, and while you could argue for a few runs more or less than a 5 penalty compared to a first baseman, anything substantially larger is illogical.

I'd personally go with 15 runs worse than 1B, so -25 positional adj, vs. the current -15. My theory is most every DH could be a terrible 1B if allowed.

Edgar: 8674 PA, 532 Rbat, -9.8 dWAR, 64.4 WAR
Sheff: 10947 PA, 560 Rbat, -28.6 dWAR, 56 WAR

Yeah, that's a joke. No way Edgar was more valuable than Sheffield defensively.

Edgar as a DH had a few seasons with better dWAR (a smaller negative) than Derek Jeter in years where Jeter played 150+ games at short. I know Jeter has been a terrible SS, and made fewer plays relative to "replacement level" shortstops, but how could a DH (even one who made a dozen or so plays each season at 1B) have better dWAR than a bad shortstop making hundreds of defensive plays a year? Am I misunderstanding dWAR?

Edgar as a DH had a few seasons with better dWAR (a smaller negative) than Derek Jeter in years where Jeter played 150+ games at short. I know Jeter has been a terrible SS, and made fewer plays relative to "replacement level" shortstops, but how could a DH (even one who made a dozen or so plays each season at 1B) have better dWAR than a bad shortstop making hundreds of defensive plays a year? Am I misunderstanding dWAR?

Nope, you understand it. dWAR is Rfield plus Position adj.

The issue is that the pos adj. for DH is way too small.

The other Rockies love having Giambi around, and talk a lot about what a great influence he is. They have a promo commercial this year portraying Giambi as the Yoda of the clubhouse.

It must say a lot about Tracy and the FO's regard for him in this respect since he's a poor fit for the roster but he's there anyway. Lefty firstbaseman backing up another lefty 1B, and when Helton went down, they needed another player to help fill in at 1st because Giambi can't play in the field every day. I mean, incompetence is surely also a factor in the roster decision, but he does seem more the hitting coach than Lansford.

[28] As a pinch hitter, I believe that contact guys are generally more valuable than TTO players.

Have you seen data on this, or is this a preference/assumption?

Edgar as a DH had a few seasons with better dWAR (a smaller negative) than Derek Jeter in years where Jeter played 150+ games at short.

A full season of DH should get you a DWAR of about -1.5. Jeter had one season worse than that, when he was -27 rfield, and one season at that level when he was -24 fielding. Maybe those fielding numbers are right, or maybe they're flukes where the defensive system was too harsh. All you're saying is that if the fielding numbers are right, they're so bad the Yankees would have been as well or better off having Jeter at short with a replacement level DH (slightly below league average hitter) as they would have with Jeter at DH with a replacement level hitting, average fielding shortstop. It's totally plausible.

I'd personally go with 15 runs worse than 1B, so -25 positional adj, vs. the current -15. My theory is most every DH could be a terrible 1B if allowed.

If this were the case then there should be well above league average hitters freely available as minor league free agents. That's obviously not true. I'm pretty sure this big of an adjustment makes the average actual DH in Major League baseball at or below replacement. Believing a positional adjustment significantly higher than what bref uses is counter factual to what we actually observe in the real world.

It's interesting to see how different players age. Without thinking about it too hard, Giambi always struck me as a live fast, die young type. It seems like he reinvented himself as a grizzled lifer somewhere along the line.

It was also interesting to see his unprompted comments on steroids. Can you think of any other prominent user who showed any remorse about it? I mean, early enough that it could affect his career.

If this were the case then there should be well above league average hitters freely available as minor league free agents.

I don't follow? Why must this be true?

I'm pretty sure this big of an adjustment makes the average actual DH in Major League baseball at or below replacement.

The avg. MLB DH is a bad player. A league average hitter with absolutely no defensive ability is a bad baseball player.

As a pinch hitter, I believe that contact guys are generally more valuable than TTO players.

Using BB REF Game Finder, I looked at the 55 players from 2007-2012 who had at least 100 games as a pinch hitter. I calculated the TTO percentage for those games for each player and then calculated correlations with their rate stats as a pinch hitter for those games.

         Player TTO RATE AS PH
Russell Branyan 0.563
      Jim Thome 0.548
    Jonny Gomes 0.504
   Jason Giambi 0.488
  Brooks Conrad 0.486
...
 Skip Schumaker 0.235
   Adam Kennedy 0.209
   Miguel Cairo 0.194
    Juan Pierre 0.162
    Aaron Miles 0.141

Correlations:

           BA OBP SLG OPS 
TTO RATE -53% -2% 14%  9%

As a pinch hitter, I believe that contact guys are generally more valuable than TTO players.

I don't actually know if this is true, just thought I remembered hearing it somewhere.

Josh, with all due respect, after injuries forced Edgar MartInez to be a DH, I think we can agree that he could not play shortstop. Jeter could play shortstop, albeit terribly (I accept that he was possibly the worst-fielding shortstop ever). Still, how could Edgar have a defensive value that is equal to or higher than Derek's? I am comparing two specific players, which WAR should allow me to do. In 2000, both players had -1.2 dWAR, as per BB-Ref, when Edgar played 146 games at DH and Jeter played 148 games at SS. Are you telling me that in 2000, it would have been just as easy to find a replacement player who could "field" as well as Edgar the DH as it would to find a replacement player who could field SS as badly as Jeter? Really? Because I watched most Yankees games in 2000 and as I recall, when the Yankees took the field Jeter did not go and sit on the bench.

Loren, with all due respect, mike Trout and John Olerud couldn't field at SS as well as Jeter can. Jeter is still a massive defensive liability and Olerud and Trout remain massive defensive assets.

I thought we all agreed that Frank Thomas increased his defensive contribution when he finally agreed to DH.

Edit: Olerud's a crotchety old man complaining about neighbors' trees now--so not so much of a defensive asset.

I thought we all agreed that Frank Thomas increased his defensive contribution when he finally agreed to DH.

No, that's impossible. The DH makes no defensive contribution.

No, that's impossible. The DH makes no defensive contribution.

I'm with you on this, but isn't the counter-argument that "no defensive contribution" from a DH is better than a "negative defensive contribution" from a position player?

I'm with you on this, but isn't the counter-argument that "no defensive contribution" from a DH is better than a "negative defensive contribution" from a position player?

No, because literally anybody can give you no defensive contribution at DH. The fact that you're a regular DH is showing that you are a worse fielder than everyone else starting on your team. So, your dWar should be lower than theirs.

Again, I agree with you, but what #45 is a refutation of the argument. All I'm saying is that whatever "agreement" there was that Frank Thomas increased his defensive contribution when he because a full-time DH had to be based on that argument. Is there any other way to come to that kind of conclusion?

The extreme case is to note that a 40-year-old Rusty Staub would hurt his team way less on defense as a DH than as a centerfielder, and therefore less negative is more positive, at least theoretically. In practice, I don't know if any team ever faces such choices. There's no doubt that Rusty would be equal in trade value to a good or even not-quite-mediocre centerfielder who hit much worse than he did. The abstraction posed by assigning dWAR to DHs is simply the "how much."

Still, how could Edgar have a defensive value that is equal to or higher than Derek's?

The key is thinking about value compared to the minimum benchmark just as you do for offense. Edgar as DH provided no defensive value over the minimum benchmark. He did not help or hurt the team on defense. If you're semi-competent at first base, you provide a little value over the minimum. If you're average at shortstop, you provide a lot of value over the minimum. If you're bad enough at defense at any position, you can fall below the minimum benchmark. If you put me at shortstop, I would make a few defensive plays over a season, but I would be so much worse than the minimum benchmark that I would hurt the team far more than Edgar did by not playing defense at all. It's no different than saying I could bat 600 times and maybe luck into a couple singles and a couple of walks -- I'd be so much below replacement that I'd provide far less value than another guy who went 1-4 on the season and didn't play any other games. As I said before, if Jeter is truly -27 fielding runs in a given season, the team is better off with Jeter at DH and a replacement level shortstop than Jeter at short with a replacement level DH.

If this were the case then there should be well above league average hitters freely available as minor league free agents.

I don't follow? Why must this be true?

With your -25 positional adjustment, a DH would have to be something like +5 rbat with average base running to be replacement level (5 runs above average offensive player). There is research showing the players as a whole hit ~5 runs worse as DH -- apparently hard to focus -- so arguably you'd need to find a true +10 rbat hitter. Replacement level is supposed to reflect the level of freely available talent. There are not freely available +5 or +10 hitters willing to sign league minimum contracts whenever you need them. The league average DH typically has an OPS+ in the 105-110 range with negative base running value. You're effectively saying there are guys willing to play for the league minimum anyone can pick up who would be better options than the league average DH that actually plays in Major League Baseball. Why don't the 6 AL teams that have DH OPS+ lines between 81 and 101 grab a multi-win upgrade off the waiver wire?

Believing a positional adjustment significantly higher than what bref uses is counter factual to what we actually observe in the real world.

I disagree. What we observe in actual life, for the entire history of the DH, is that about half the teams every season use the DH slot to rotate players through rather than have a full-time DH. The only players who are full-time DHs tend to be guys who post OPS+ of at least 130 (or were guys who posted OPS+ of at least 130). This suggests that, in fact, teams consider replacement level for "guy with zero defensive value" to be an exceptional bat.

In the 40 years of the DH, there have only been 126 seasons with 120+ games at DH. The only players with 5+ such seasons are Chili Davis, Ortiz, Baylor, Edgar, Thomas, Baines.

Baylor is probably the worst of that bunch but he had won an MVP earlier and his 2nd and 3rd seasons as a full-time DH were OPS+s in the 130. Davis wasn't great all those years but he had a 4-year run 34-37 of a 136 OPS+. Thomas was no longer the great Frank Thomas but ages 32-39 he put up a 139 OPS+. Baines, an odd career and became a DH at 28 but was better in his 30s ... from age 30 to 40 he had a 130 OPS+. Ortiz and Edgar of course crush.

There are a few guys with 4 full-time years at DH. For example Hafner (who crushed the ball) and Molitor (who didn't but he was at the end of his career). Molitor did have a few seasons of mostly DH and about 40 games at 1B during which he usually put up a 140-ish OPS+.

So teams seem only willing to carry a full-time DH -- i.e. a player whose value is purely bat -- when that player is expected to put up something like a 130 OPS+. That makes Billy Butler (130 OPS+ over the last 4 years) pretty much the break-even point for carrying a DH. That's about 23-24 runs in today's environment.

Things aren't different now. Full-time DHs this year: Butler and Delmon Young (terrible). Ortiz and Hafner have been hurt. Surprisingly, even Adam Dunn and Kendrys Morales have plenty of time at 1B this year. Encarnacion was switched to mainly 1B in June. From 2008-12, there are 22 seasons of 100+ games at DH. Ortiz has 4, Matsui 3 (126 and 123 OPS+ in the first 2 of those).

Remember when we couldn't figure out why TB was able to get Pat Burrell so cheaply (2/16)? Well, he'd been -35 defensively the last 2 years so (he seemed) to be just Pat the Bat now. As a 125 OPS+ hitter with no defensive value, he just wasn't worth a whole lot.

In essence, "replacement level DH" is a myth. Other than the aged star or the big-contract cliff-diver, teams throughout the DH era have preferred to carry an extra 4th OF (or whatever) than an empty above-average bat. There most likely are guys in AAAA who could put up a 100-110 OPS+ with horrific defense but teams (other than the Tigers :-) don't value that. The reason we don't see a flotilla of Adam LaRoches as full-time DHs is because, without being able to play a passable 1B, nobody would give Adam LaRoche a job.

So, replacement level for DH is Adam LaRoche who is about a 1.5 oWAR first baseman.

Or, really, replacement level DH is somewhere well above Reed Johnson. The career 97 OPS+ 4th OF is considered more valuable than a 120 OPS+ player with no defensive value. He won't kill you in his DH starts (esp against lefties) and he allows you to rest your starting LF/CF/RF/1B in the DH slot and he provides greater in-game flexibility. Teams might be making the wrong decision but they've been making that decision for 40 years.

Which makes perfect sense and is consistent with history. If you're utterly useless in the field, you'd better be bringing a 125 OPS+ bat _at a minimum_ if you hope to win a job.

I thought we all agreed that Frank Thomas increased his defensive contribution when he finally agreed to DH.

No, that's impossible. The DH makes no defensive contribution.

Which is better than making a negative one.

The Manny Ramirez/David Ortiz thing really sold me on this. The idea that Ramirez was taking -20 or worse (fielding + pos adj) playing left field while Ortiz only got -15 at DH was laughable, given that Ramirez was only out there b/c Ortiz couldn't even fake a position.

To see why your argument doesn't make sense, imagine that Ortiz died in a freak paragliding accident, and the Red Sox cloned Manny Ramirez to fill their now-open DH slot. Now you've got identical players with identical skills. One is 'adding' negative value with his glove in LF; the other one is adding zero value with his glove at DH. And yet you're arguing that LF-Manny is more valuable defensively than DH-Manny, even though LF-Manny is sub-RL with the glove, and even though swapping them would lead to identical results.

You're overcompensating. Every team has to play a DH. (Well, every team in the real league.) It's not as if a guy not-DHing means you get an extra defensive player on the field.