(**) In the same way that we don't dock Ozzie Smith for the offense a better bat at SS -- and there were plenty out there -- might have provided his teams.

If Vlad or Ortiz gets over to the NL, you'll have an argument, but until then, I don't see it.

I know; I didn't reference it -- other than in passing (**) -- because it's senseless. He didn't crowd anyone out, because the Mariners would still have employed a DH. You're positing a choice they didn't make.

OK. You're way off, but OK

He won one Silver Slugger during that time, and in his whole career -- 1987, when Hubie Brooks, a much better offensive player, was still feeling the effects of the hand injury that cost him part of the 1986 season, one in which he OPS+'d a phenomenal 161 on the way to the second of back-to-back Silver Sluggers.

(**) Why focus on the NL? Trades and free agency signings between AL and NL teams were allowed back then.

and when Ortiz is hitting as he has in seasons past, his bat more than makes up for any defensive deficiencies.

Jim Thome hasn't hit at prime Edgar levels since 2007,

but when he was with the Phillies they were more than happy to put up with his defensive klutziness at first base.

And Jason Giambi was competing with Todd Helton. If Thome were hitting at Edgar's level, he very well might have replaced James Loney. Comparing either of those situations to an "Edgar in his prime" (which is what I'd said) doesn't really pose the issue objectively.

in 1986, when he had a 161 OPS+ -- a peak Ozzie couldn't see with the Hubble.

Is a Trevor Hoffman level closer really not as valuable as an average starter?

Just out of curiosity, what do you say when the Old Farts set complains about "pitchers who can't finish what they start?" Do you consider the best starting pitchers of today only "7/9-pitchers" who "force their teams to hire extra pitchers?" You can't deny that pitchers who regularly threw complete games saved at least one roster spot, and enabled their managers not to have to scramble nearly as much with their bullpens?

And are closers "1/9 pitchers?" Is a Trevor Hoffman level closer really not as valuable as an average starter? Or do you take the sensible approach of acknowledging that times change, and judge them by what they were hired to do, and not what they weren't hired to do?

And if you can do that for "7/9" and "1/9" pitchers, why can't you do that for designated hitters?

When was the last time a closer had a PA?

"Manny in LF +Ortiz at DH + fielding 1B >> Manny at DH + Ortiz at 1B + fielding LF" That says a lot.

Like Jim Thome or Jason Giambi, BOTH of whom were DHs that came to the NL this past season, and were relegated to pinch hitting.

That's a lovely completely pointless observation that you are completely making up. Ortiz, IIRC, *sat* in interleague away games.

That says A BUNCH.

's mainly a function of having Kevin Youkilis on the team. If Youks came up as an outfielder (he's been crap out there on those rare occasions) and couldn't/wouldn't play 1B, then it's Manny that would have DHed and Papi would have been the 1B.

Or like Manny Ramirez, whom the Dodgers well knew would hurt them in the field, but they traded for him anyway?

Games played at 1B, David Ortiz:

09: 6
08: 0
07: 7
06: 10
05: 10
04: 34
03: 45

Typically there's 18 or so IL games/team, IIRC, 9 in away games.

Chris, I see a little bit of circular reference in your argument -- and I may have missed your point. But how about Milton Bradley (yeah, DHing for health related reasons, but played badly in limited time in the field in 2008)

Giambi was DHing quite a bit in 2006 but started in the NL parks most if not all of the time. His rep at this point was brutal and they were DHing him to give playing time to some pretty ugly bats.

You can do this sort of thing with any position - which the Ozzie Smith discussion was meant to illustrate. But, of course, it got sidetracked by a conversation about Hubie Brooks. Such is the way of Primer.

The Manny/Ortiz dilemma is pretty rare.

The Manny/Ortiz dilemma is pretty rare.

And beyond that, I find the idea that a fielding statue like Kiner or Williams has any real "advantage" over a DH of comparable offensive value to be of little practical significance, since it means assigning an absurdly exaggerated value to that 25th man on the roster that the statue leaves room for.

Right. A more illustrative example would be along the lines of "What if Ryne Sandberg could play SS? Then the Cubs could have gotten another second baseman who hit better than Shawon Dunston. Thus, we have to dock Sandberg for that inflexibility."

For those who have looked -- was Ted Williams's defense really this bad?

In 2009:
The Jays had Lind and Snider.
The Red Sox had Bay and Ortiz.
The Twins had Kubel and Cuddyer
The White Sox had Thome, Dye, and Quentin
The Angels had Abreu and Vlad

His total zone for his last three years was terrible, but was actually decent for the years before that (1954 and onwards). In terms of fielding percentage, and range factor (for whatever they're worth), he looks like he was about where you would expect him to be, which is slightly below average. At least based on what's available, he doesn't look like he was a butcher.

Of course, for evaluations of defense from that long ago, I'd prefer to go with the evaluations from his contemporaries, which were generally not flattering.

And notice how his participation in those games has dwindled.

The vote against Edgar can only represent one of two things:

What this suggests is that teams often actually have difficulty finding a guy to DH who can provide them much more offense than they're going to get from some of the other positions.

For those who have looked -- was Ted Williams's defense really this bad?

150. Primer Dial Soap Posted: December 21, 2009 at 10:03 PM (#3419185)
Or like Manny Ramirez, whom the Dodgers well knew would hurt them in the field, but they traded for him anyway?
You are missing the argument. Manny *can* play LF adequately, and hit a ton. This doesn't make any sense.

2009: 6 out of 9 games started in NL parks.
2007: 7/9.
2006: 7/9.
2005: 8/9.
2004: 7/9
2003: 4/9

Go ahead and claim that a drop of one game in '09 means his "participation has dwindled." Go right ahead.

you cheerfully ignored the Manny example-why's that?

That the average DH doesn't seem to hit any better than a first baseman means that when a team is searching out for a DH, they're going to value Edgar a lot.

Oh, my bad - he's always sat some of the away games in IL...which I said to begin with.

Ortiz, IIRC, *sat* in interleague away games.

A more illustrative example would be along the lines of "What if Ryne Sandberg could play SS? Then the Cubs could have gotten another second baseman who hit better than Shawon Dunston. Thus, we have to dock Sandberg for that inflexibility."

For those who have looked -- was Ted Williams's defense really this bad?

Sophisticated evaluations DO "dock" Sandberg: they use positional adjustments for each position, and 2B loses runs relative to SS (plus he gains or loses runs relative to other 2B). Best I can tell, the DH defenders here don't want to apply such adjustments to the DH.

This isn't true. He makes his team hire someone else - a worse hitter to play the field. That's the specific I said about Manny.

I know; I didn't reference it -- other than in passing (**) -- because it's senseless. He didn't crowd anyone out, because the Mariners would still have employed a DH. You're positing a choice they didn't make.

(**) To repeat: we don't dock people for the fictional performance of people who weren't in the lineup because they were.

If you have Edgar, yes you then have to slot in your 'worst' defensive player from the eight other guys you want to start somewhere in the field. However, this is something that EVERY team does. They have a guy from whom they want to get as much offense as possible - and who is GUARANTEED to be league average defensively for his position.

If you don't put Edgar there, then someone else is taking that spot.

It's a real spot. It's not hypothetical or imaginary or whatever. The DH exists and 14 teams play with one. That the average DH doesn't seem to hit any better than a first baseman means that when a team is searching out for a DH, they're going to value Edgar a lot.

Of course I realize that. Hell, that's the main reason I'd take a park neutralized peak Dimaggio over a park-neutralized peak Williams, in spite of the chasm in their BB rate. All I'm saying about Edgar is that his offensive numbers put him over the line. I'm not putting him over a great all-around player like Larkin, I'm just putting him in the HoF. In spite of all my rhetoric in defense of Martinez the DH, he's one of only three DH's I'd put in Cooperstown, Thomas and Molitor being the others---and Molitor in fact brought a lot more to his game than hitting.

This misses the point. Of course you have to put someone in at DH if you're the Mariners. But if Edgar could have played 3B (without getting hurt), then the Mariners could play someone at DH who hit better than Russ Davis, David Bell, Jeff Cirillo, et al. That's where the opportunity cost comes in. You don't just slot in your worst remaining defensive player; you find someone better than your current 3Bman.

Put another way: a first baseman who is truly atrocious is less defensively useful than a DH. At some point the ease of replacing them overcomes the ease of replacing even the "no defensive value" guy.

If that were the case, then the team would just swap said atrocious first baseman and the DH.

There is a base value to a position - and the difficulties associated with positions are determined by the offensive levels the position provides. Once you establish that base value, in regular positions the players may provide offensive or defensive value, or they may be worse than a replacement or average player.

For a DH, that is true for offense, but they're always equal on defense. They get the basic defensive 'value' associated with their position, but can't improve on it or hurt themselves by doing poorly.

It's my recollection that the M's were concerned about him injuring himself while trying to field, though I might be in error there.

I believe your recollection was correct. Especially late in his career, the Mariners were extremely reluctant to use Edgar in the field, mostly because they were sure that he'd hurt himself, or blow something out - he had frequent hamstring-related problems basically from 1993 onwards, which was part of the reason for his transition to DH.

There's no adjustment to the metric we compare with replacement level for the runs a better hitter would have created. Ozzie Smith's glove kept a better bat out of the Cardinal lineup. There's no adjustment to Ozzie's record for that reality.

I don't agree with your claim that the base value for a position is (or should be) determined by offense. That's conceptually wrong. However, it's a side issue as far as this discussion is concerned so I'll move on.

Ozzie Smith's glove kept a better bat out of the Cardinal lineup. There's no adjustment to Ozzie's record for that reality.

What is that analysis failing to take proper account of?

The problem as I see it, is that a 1B who hits like the average 1B, but is minus 10 with the glove, gets ranked as being worse than a DH who hits like an average DH- and who is DHing because he'd be minus 20 with the glove if allowed to play the field.

"replacement level" for a DH should be set higher than that of a 1B- ANYONE can DH (not everyone should of course)

Which leads precisely to the problem that an average DH will be judged "more valuable" than an average-hitting below-average-fielding 1B if you key your "replacement level" to average offensive performance at a position.

Actually, the problem with this issue is that this is precisely NOT "a side issue" - it's the core problem. The average DH hits worse than the average 1B (and sometimes worse than the average LF or RF). Which leads precisely to the problem that an average DH will be judged "more valuable" than an average-hitting below-average-fielding 1B if you key your "replacement level" to average offensive performance at a position.