David Ortiz and Cooperstown's Double Standard

Based on what's been written in the wake of his third World Series title, it appears as though this latest round of postseason heroics has pushed David Ortiz over the hypothetical Hall of Fame threshold. He's certainly not a bad choice. In almost 2,000 career games, Ortiz has hit .287/.381/.549 with 431 home runs and a 139 OPS+. Remove his unspectacular stint with the Minnesota Twins and those numbers look even better. And in 82 career playoff games, he owns a .939 OPS, two walk-off home runs, and a host of other memorable clutch moments. But what makes Ortiz's case even more engrossing is his connection to performance-enhancing drugs.

Unlike Manny Ramirez and Rafael Palmeiro, Ortiz has never officially tested positive for a banned substance. He falls into the same category as Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza (and, technically, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens), in that the evidence against him is purely circumstantial:

1. A New York Times report in 2009 claimed that Ortiz was one of the 104 players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs during "anonymous" survey testing in 2003, before the current testing system was installed. That famous list reportedly also implicates Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, and Sammy Sosa. Not the best company. It doesn't help that Ortiz was Ramirez's teammate for a number of years.

2. Ortiz's OPS with the Minnesota Twins, from 1997 to 2002, was .809. Since joining the Red Sox in 2003, his OPS has been .962.

3. Ortiz looked like toast in 2009, when he got off to a painfully slow start and hit just .238 for the season. It looked like he might retire at the beginning of 2010, when he hit .143 in April as a 34-year old. In the three years since then, he's recovered in a huge way to hit .311/.401/.571.

These are the indicators that the overly-suspicious baseball community has decided upon as the telltale signs of illicit drug use. They're all there: the unsubstantiated reports, the compromised teammates, the quantum leap in production, the late-30s career renaissance. There's far more "evidence" implicating Ortiz than there is against, say, Mike Piazza, and Piazza was rejected by the Hall of Fame voters last year purely based on skepticism and suspicion. For the sake of intellectual consistency, shouldn't Ortiz get the same treatment?

Spoiler alert: he won't. Ortiz isn't subject to the same level of scrutiny as other Hall candidates. And that tells you everything you need to know about how twisted this process has become.

The best illustration of this double standard comes from Jon Heyman, a CBS Sports analyst with a Hall of Fame vote. His Friday column covered Ortiz's case for Cooperstown, and performance-enhancing drugs was one of the key points he addressed. In the past, Heyman has proudly announced his refusal to vote for players even tangentially connected to steroids (not just Bonds and Clemens, but Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza too). So it was good to see the following paragraph, which suggested he would hold Ortiz to the same tough standard to which he has held others:

"Ortiz is no A-Rod, as anyone reasonably can conclude. But that doesn't mean he gets a free pass, either, not without a serious consideration of the facts. With even more accomplished players than Ortiz such as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and others omitted from Cooperstown to date, it wouldn't be right not to at least consider the case against Ortiz. A great nickname, way with words and penchant for maximizing the moment doesn't win Big Papi a free pass. So the case against must be considered."

Very reasonable. Heyman isn't letting Ortiz's narrative affect his broader evaluative method. He then goes on to acknowledge a few of the links between Ortiz and drugs:

"Ortiz was one of 104 players to fail MLB's 2003 steroid survey test ... Ortiz was a marginal player until he got [to] the Red Sox in his late 20s, then took a giant leap to become Manny Ramirez's co-equal runningmate, and he has remained great even into his late 30s after looking like he might be nearing the end at least a couple different times a half-decade ago ... A giant bear of a man, he once seemed like the nicest guy in the world, but more recently has shown occasional signs of surliness and one classic fit of temper ... He knows Manny well."

It's important to note at this juncture that these are all ridiculous reasons to exclude Ortiz from the Hall. One unconfirmed report, some statistical fluctuation, and "signs of surliness" aren't evidence of drug use. That's not the point here. The point is that Heyman -- a Hall of Fame voter -- has a well-established history of withholding his vote from players who have been loosely connected to drugs. Here, he appears to be willing to apply that tough standard to the eminently-lovable Ortiz. That's what's important -- intellectual consistency. Even if I don't agree with Heyman's Hall standard, at least he's got a philosophy that he wields fairly across the board. In his own words:

"... it isn't necessarily unreasonable to omit Ortiz based on this one serious mistake. Players who took steroids or even laced supplements gained an unfair advantage, and I have never voted for anyone linked to steroids."

Again, I disagree with this position, but it's hard not to respect Heyman for sticking to his ideological guns, even when faced with an appealing baseball character like Ortiz.

Except at the very end of this column, Heyman does a complete about-face that highlights the Ortiz double standard:

"Some Hall of Fame voters will exclude players with any link to steroids, no matter how strong that link is, but in this case it fairly boils down to one un-sourced report involving a test for survey purposes.

Is that enough to exclude? Not here it isn't.

Cooperstown it is."

I mean ... what? After all that, Heyman is endorsing Ortiz for the Hall? Here's how the logic of this column breaks down:

1. I, Jon Heyman, have never voted for anyone linked to steroids.
2. Here is a bunch of evidence linking David Ortiz to steroids.
3. I support David Ortiz for Cooperstown!

So much for a reasonably-applied standard. Heyman's voting principles are now completely compromised. Just a year ago, his official Hall of Fame ballot did not include Jeff Bagwell. It did not include Mike Piazza. Both of those players had twice the careers that Ortiz had, but Heyman did not vote for them because of unconfirmed reports and rumors about their drug use. Yet in Ortiz's case, Heyman is suddenly willing to acknowledge nuance and look past the unconfirmed reports and rumors. This confirms exactly what we have come to expect -- baseball writers aren't making Hall of Fame decisions based on reason and logic and sound criteria. They're voting on narratives and personal biases. Bagwell and Piazza? They never won a championship, did anything memorable, or played for great teams, so they probably used drugs. They're out. Ortiz? He's a fun dude with a cool nickname, some clutch moments, and three titles for a historic franchise, so he probably didn't use drugs. He's in.

This is not David Ortiz's fault. He may very well be a Hall of Famer, and his tenuous connection to drugs should not be a factor when the time comes to make that decision. It is encouraging to see an actual voter like Jon Heyman promoting that view. It would just be great if Heyman could provide other suspected users like Bagwell and Piazza with the same benefit of the doubt that Ortiz has apparently earned.

------------

There's a second aspect of the Ortiz double standard that isn't drug-related. It has to do with another designated hitter: Edgar Martinez. Martinez has been on the Hall of Fame ballot for four years now, and hasn't yet crossed the 40% threshold, suggesting that his chances of induction aren't good at all. But if Ortiz is now being considered a Hall of Famer, then the voters had better take a second look at Martinez, because the gap between these players is striking.

Martinez had the better slash line (.312/.418/.515), his on-base advantage trumping Ortiz's edge in power (.287/.381/.549). Martinez has the better OPS+ (147 to 138). They have similar career games played and plate appearance totals, yet Baseball Reference has Ortiz's career value at 44.2 WAR and Martinez's at 68.3, thanks in part to Ortiz's forgettable stint with Twins. Both were DHs, but Martinez actually spent less of his time there (74%) than Ortiz (86%). Fangraphs.com grades Ortiz as the inferior baserunner and defender. Martinez actually played some third base, which Ortiz probably can't even do in his own imagination. Granted, Ortiz has the postseason accomplishments, but ... what am I missing here? Until he tacks on a few more seasons of elite production, he can't be considered Martinez's equal.

So how can Jon Heyman support Ortiz for the Hall when he didn't vote for Martinez last year? Well, this is what he wrote about Edgar last January:

"Had that pretty slash line of .312/.418/.515. But since he was mostly a DH, I would have liked a bit more power, longevity or speed. Great, but pretty one-dimensional."

Reading that blurb now is devastatingly ironic considering Heyman's more recent endorsement of Ortiz. If he didn't vote for Martinez because he was a slow and one-dimensional DH without enough longevity, how can he possibly justify a future vote for Ortiz, who's an even-slower and even-more-one-dimensional DH with an even shorter career? Again, it's the same illogical approach discussed above. It clearly doesn't have anything to do with merit. It's because Martinez didn't have an outgoing personality or a badass nickname like "Big Papi" or the good fortune to play for great teams in three World Series. It's about narrative. Baseball writers love narrative -- they write it and promote it for a living -- so it's no surprise that narrative has become the most important means of judging a player's ultimate career value. This is not the objective analysis that baseball -- more rooted in statistics than any other sport -- deserves.

Based on Heyman's voting record with respect to Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, and Edgar Martinez, there was absolutely no rational reason to expect him to support David Ortiz's candidacy as a one-dimensional DH with connections to performance-enhancing drugs. And yet he still wrote that column endorsing Ortiz. It's just another example of how broken Cooperstown's voting process really is. As long as narrative, not merit, determines its membership, the Hall of Fame's relevance as a record of baseball greatness will be undermined.

Please Ignore Facts and Stick to Narrative

Carlos Beltran of the St. Louis Cardinals clobbered two home runs in a rout of the Washington Nationals on Monday, helping his team tie the Division Series at one game apiece. Beltran is no stranger to postseason heroics: he famously parlayed his 2004 playoff explosion (8 homers in 12 games!) into a huge contract with the New York Mets. As Beltran's second Monday homer left Busch Stadium, baseball insider and CBS Sports writer Jon Heyman had this to say on Twitter:

carlos beltran is so completely totally awesome as playoff player. *except as a new york met
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) October 8, 2012

Heyman is probably referring to one specific moment of Beltran's playoff career with the Mets: Game 7 of the 2006 National League Championship Series, when Beltran came to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded and his team trailing 3-1. Beltran famously struck out looking on an Adam Wainwright curveball and the Mets were eliminated.

So because Beltran didn't come through in that moment, he was a playoff choker with the Mets. Never mind that Beltran actually scored the Mets' only run of the game. Never mind that Beltran's OPS during that seven-game series was 1.054, and he hit three home runs. Never mind that in the previous series, when the Mets swept the Dodgers, Beltran reached base in half of his 14 plate appearances. Never mind that Beltran is one of the greatest active postseason players with a line of .362/.478/.819 and 13 home runs in 25 career playoff games. He failed that one time, so he couldn't have been very good after all.

Beltran's career is still defined by this one moment in one postseason at-bat, and for people like Heyman, that one moment clouds all of his other accomplishments. When Beltran's name appears on the Hall of Fame ballot, Heyman might not vote for him in part because of the looming specter of that one bad postseason moment. On the flip side, Heyman is more sympathetic to players like Jack Morris because of one great postseason moment. Yet in a vacuum, Morris making the Hall and Beltran missing it would be a joke.

Truthfully, Carlos Beltran shouldn't need another signature postseason moment to erase the memory of that one strikeout in 2006. But for his sake, I'm kind of hoping he gets one anyway.

This Man Is Paid To Write About Baseball

Jon Heyman of CBS Sports unleashed this bizarre message unto the Twitter universe on Monday night, unaltered so that its capitalization-fail remains intact:

"matt wieters should be on mvp ballots somewhere. best player in game w/ .765 OPS."

Here's some physical evidence that this actually happened, in case you were skeptical:

matt wieters should be on mvp ballots somewhere. best player in game w/ .765 OPS.
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) September 18, 2012

I have no quarrel with Wieters appearing on an MVP ballot, especially since those things can run 20 players deep depending on the year. What's truly baffling is the second statement, or the justification for the first statement:

Matt Wieters is the best player in the game with a .765 OPS.

Here's the thing: technically, this is true. Because entering play Monday, Matt Wieters was the only player in baseball with an OPS at exactly .765. So by default, yes, this is technically a fact.

But it doesn't matter. It's a ludicrous thing to say. Utterly nonsensical. I suppose Alexei Ramirez is the best player in baseball with a .671 OPS, but only because his only competition at that statistical benchmark is the esteemed Michael Young. Did you know that Justin Smoak is the best player in baseball with a .601 OPS? He's the only one, too! He should be on MVP ballots somewhere!

I guess what Heyman was trying to say is that, for a player with a .765 OPS (which is okay, nothing to write home about, with the league average for catchers at just above .700), Wieters is very good. Especially compared to players who have an OPS in the same neighborhood as Wieters, like Justin Upton (.764) or Neil Walker (.766). Of course, this stems from the fact that Wieters is a catcher, and that he plays great defense. If one was to make a real-life, non-Heymanian argument supporting some MVP votes for Wieters, one would have to cite defensive value as the best supporting evidence. Not some bizarre justification based on a random OPS number that isn't even terribly impressive in the first place.

Hopefully, Jon Heyman is just messing with us. Please.

Some Things Re: Melky Cabrera's Suspension

In a shocking and disappointing development, MLB's hits leader and All-Star Game MVP Melky Cabrera was slapped with a 50-game suspension for testing positive for a performance-enhancing drug. A heftier version of Cabrera was cut by the Atlanta Braves less than two years ago, but the slimmer model was enjoying a career year in 2012 by hitting .346 with a .516 slugging percentage for the San Francisco Giants.

It's tempting to write off most of Cabrera's newfound stardom as artificial, thanks to the drugs. Prominent baseball writer Jon "Actually Has a Hall of Fame Vote" Heyman has no trouble doing so, in an article for CBS Sports.com entitled "Melky was having a great season, until the day we found out it was all one big fraud." A quick excerpt:

"Maybe Melky's numbers are nothing but a mirage, anyway.

Maybe he really isn't a .346 hitter on a level playing field. Maybe he doesn't have 11 home runs playing home games in a big ballpark, or 60 RBI. Or even 13 stolen bases.

Maybe he doesn't have anywhere near those numbers without the extra help.

Maybe Melky isn't the All-Star Game MVP without the artificial boost. Maybe he doesn't even get to the All-Star Game.

Maybe he is just another guy on a level playing field. Maybe he's the guy who was the flabby, below average player he was in Atlanta. Or maybe's just the decent but clutch guy he was with the Yankees.

Maybe Melky has regrets about the drugs. But maybe he doesn't. We'll never know for sure, because who'd believe him, anyway?

Maybe Melky knew he needed the lift to become the player he appeared to be. If that's the case, maybe Melky understood the risk, took his shot and enjoyed several moments in the sun, including one in Kansas City that's eminently regrettable to all those who witnessed it now.

His career turnaround seemed too good to be true. And so it was."

It's so easy to write stuff like this. It's so easy to use the positive drug test to explain away Melky's seemingly-out-of-nowhere dominance that rational people couldn't explain. But it's lazy. It makes it seem like all "too good to be true" career turnarounds--like, say, Josh Hamilton a few years ago, or A.J. Burnett now--are drug-fueled, because they couldn't possibly happen otherwise. Melky couldn't possibly have anything to do with his own success story. He can't possibly be talented enough or dedicated enough to turn his career around on his own accord. IT WAS ALL THE DRUGS GUYS, DON'T WORRY WE FIGURED IT OUT.

This is in no way to defend what Melky Cabrera did. He admitted to using a banned substance and earned every game of his suspension. What's bothersome is the assumption that players once thought of as "bad" or "lazy" or "fat" who go on to have big years are automatically on steroids. Check this out:

Melky Cabrera's OPS, 2006-2010: .709
Melky Cabrera's OPS, 2011-2012: .849
Percent Increase: 20%

Mystery Player's OPS, 2006-2010: .808
Mystery Player's OPS, 2011-2012: 1.009
Percent Increase: 20%

That mystery player experienced a very similar career turnaround over the same time frame. That player finished second in the MVP vote last year. That player is Matt Kemp.

Not to suggest that Kemp used drugs, too. This just shows that it's possible for someone to experience a Melky-like renaissance without artificial help. It doesn't have to be "too good to be true."

That's Part One of the Melky Debate. Part Two involves which of Cabrera's statistical improvements, exactly, can be attributed to performance-enhancing drugs. Like, sure, he's hitting .346, which is far above his career average of .284, and his slugging percentage is 100 points higher than his career average. But specifically, what is fueling those increases?

It's pretty clear: luck. Cabrera's batting average on balls in play (a statistic notoriously dependent on random chance) is inflated at .379, above his career average of .309. Almost every other one of Melky's statistical indicators have held steady compared to his career norms. He's striking out in 12.6% of his appearances and walking in 7.2% of them; his career numbers in those categories are 12.1% and 7.1%, respectively. His line-drive percentage is 21.8% (career: 19.7%). His groundballs are only slightly up and his fly balls are only slightly down, which probably explains his higher batting average and batting average on balls in play. The sole significant statistical difference is the percentage of his fly balls that become home runs. His career number is 7.3% but that's up to 10.7% this season. It could be argued that the testosterone gave him the extra "oomph" to put a few more fly balls into the bleachers, which would throw some suspicion on his power numbers. Yet even then, his 11 homers don't seem out of place; he hit 18 last year, and had 13 in 2009.

Cabrera is pretty much the same player he's always been. He's simply in shape, running faster, and apparently making a conscious effort to hit the ball on the ground more. All of those things, plus a little luck, have combined to pump up his average to a career high .346. Yeah, the testosterone might have helped rebuild his body and/or inflate his performance. It's just impossible to pinpoint where, or by how much. That fact makes Heyman's bold-faced, character-assassinating accusations impossible to prove. So why make them in the first place?

Call Melky Cabrera a cheater if you so desire. He cheated. And it's a bummer. But don't call him a mirage or a hoax. The numbers don't lie: he's still the same old Melky.

Johnny Cueto and the Importance of All-Star Selections

One of the more glaring All-Star snubs this year was Cincinnati Reds ace Johnny Cueto, who as of this very moment has a 2.35 ERA in 114.2 innings, which is very good. Rather than picking Cueto to his team, NL manager Tony La Russa instead chose Jonathan Papelbon, who has inferior numbers in far fewer innings (as a reliever). It was a baffling decision, and one that looks a little shady considering Cueto's role in an ugly brawl between the Reds and LaRussa's Cardinals a few years back. Was LaRussa getting revenge by keeping Cueto from his rightful spot on the All-Star team? Not according to what LaRussa said:

"If [Reds manager] Dusty [Baker] had been more interested in Cueto being on the team, then he wouldn't be pitching him on Sunday."

LaRussa's excuse: the old rule that pitchers starting the Sunday before the All-Star Break are ineligible to pitch in the game. The problem with that: the rule was changed this year. Pitchers who start on Sunday can be named to the game, and even pitch an inning. Oops.

So, Johnny Cueto lost his rightful designation as an All-Star EITHER because Tony LaRussa is acting on an old grudge OR Tony LaRussa did not have a complete grasp of the All-Star selection rules. That seems...unfair.

But not to Jon Heyman. He writes:

"N.L. manager Tony La Russa doesn't hold a grudge against the Reds. And even if he does, I can't say I entirely blame him.

Johnny Cueto was deserving of making the team based on his first half, but if Reds manager Dusty Baker is correct that La Russa didn't pick Cueto or second baseman Brandon Phillips because those two players played significant roles in a noted brawl between the Cardinals and Reds, well, so be it. Picking All-Stars is one of the benefits of winning the World Series.

If La Russa recalls that Cueto didn't just play a significant role in the brawl (as Baker characterized it), but actually kicked ex-Cardinals catcher Jason LaRue in the head, causing LaRue to have a concussion and to have to retire, well maybe Cueto should think twice before behaving that way."

That's right. As Cueto's foot was in the air, flying toward Jason LaRue's head, he should have paused and thought to himself, "Wait. Hang on a tick. What if, in a few years, I'm up for a spot in the All-Star Game, and the guy in charge of deciding whether or not I make it turns out to be the manager of the team whose catcher I'm about to clobber, and that manager will keep me from pitching in this future hypothetical All-Star Game because of a petty, long-standing grudge?" Come on. No one's saying that kicking LaRue in the head is acceptable behavior. But Cueto was in a brawl with a bunch of other players, from both teams. I'm guessing none of those other players involved that day were denied from All-Star Games. Punishments were handed down by MLB authorities. That should be the end of the matter. It's ridiculous to suggest that Cueto should still be paying for that day years later, especially at the hands of a retired manager entrusted with objectively choosing the most worthy All-Star participants.

Of course, I don't think LaRussa left Cueto off the roster as revenge. I think it's totally within the realm of possibility that the guy didn't know the Sunday rule had changed. But Heyman seems convinced that this whole operation is a "revenge is a dish best served cold" thing, so here we are.

"La Russa didn't suggest he was paying Cueto back for LaRue, nor would I expect him to. But it's a hard thing to forget.

To summarize, Cueto has won no World Series and caused one Cardinals concussion. What should he expect?"

To be judged fairly on the basis of merit alone? To be properly recognized for his accomplishments in 2012?  And docking points from Cueto for not winning a title yet ranks pretty high on the Crazy Scale, since Cueto hasn't even spent five years in the majors yet. And hang on, take a step back: since when is winning a World Series part of the criteria for All-Star Game selections, anyway? (answer: never.) This is lunacy.

"Apparently, he expects to be on the team. I see on the Internet where Cueto might challenge his non-selection, citing the fact La Russa had Cueto's pitching schedule wrong in explaining his omission. Here's my take: Suck it up, Johnny. Try to win a title this year, then wait 'for Dusty to take you next year."

Again, with the title. Why, suddenly, is Johnny Cueto the only player in baseball who needs to win a World Series to warrant an appearance in the All-Star Game?

In a perfect world, none of this would matter much. It should just be an entertaining diversion and an interesting side-plot for the All-Star break. I couldn't care less about it. But here's the thing: to Jon Heyman, All-Star selections actually matter. A lot. He votes for the Hall of Fame, and actually uses figures like "X Number of Times He Was An All-Star" to judge which players he votes for. It apparently doesn't matter that this very article, written by Heyman himself, shows how flawed that "statistic" is. He thinks it's okay that a deserving All-Star, like Cueto, can be denied that designation just because the manager of the defending World Series champion has a bone to pick, or just because the manager of the defending World Series champion isn't entirely familiar with the selection rules. Immediately, we see that "Number of Times He Was An All-Star" is a "statistic" so completely subject to personal bias and randomness that it's almost useless when it comes to building Hall of Fame cases.

And yet...I know that in a few months, Jack Morris will once again appear on the Hall of Fame ballot, and Jon Heyman will be writing an article that vehemently claims Jack Morris deserves to be a Hall of Famer because he started three All-Star Games, and was an All-Star a total of five times. And Jon Heyman will try to convince me that those numbers actually mean something. And I will think back to this article, when Jon Heyman tried to convince me that Johnny Cueto, of the 2.35 ERA, didn't deserve an All-Star spot because of an old brawl and a grudge. And then I will remember just how subjective, unfair, and utterly useless the "Number of Times He Was An All-Star" statistic really is.

Matt Kemp Is Not The MVP

With two months and a third of the season in the books, it's just about time to begin the annual debate over what the word "valuable" means in the MVP discussion. CBS Sports columnist and frequent agitator of reasonable men Jon Heyman has handed out his early-season awards, and while his choices for AL MVP (Josh Hamilton), AL Cy Young (Chris Sale), and NL Cy Young (Gio Gonzalez) are all perfectly defensible, his selection for NL MVP is not:

"1. Matt Kemp, Dodgers OF: He's played only 36 games, but what a 36 games it was. He had 12 home runs, 28 RBI, .355 batting average, .719 slugging percentage amd 1.163 OPS before going down a second time because of hamstring trouble. The Dodgers are hanging in nicely without him, but he got them off on the right foot."

First off: "getting one's team off on the right foot" is not one of the official MVP criteria. Not by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Now: why isn't Kemp the MVP? Because while he might be the best player in the National League in 2012, he definitely hasn't been the most valuable.

The Dodgers have played in 60 games this season. Kemp has played in 36 of them. A position player cannot be a candidate for Most Valuable Player if he has only appeared in 60% of his team's games. Sure, Kemp has provided MVP value when he's been in the lineup...but he's also provided exactly ZERO value the other 40% of the time. In those games, his at-bats are being taken by Elian Herrera. That takes him out of the running for the award right now.

And it's not like Heyman is counting on Kemp to return to the lineup tomorrow or next week. He may not be back until the Dodgers have played 80 games. At that point, the season will be half-over and Kemp will have played in less than half of the maximum number of games. This player can't be the most valuable guy in the league. Lots of players have been "worse" than Kemp this year, but still have been more valuable than the Dodgers star because they actually played in baseball games this past month.

Remember: although the statistics Heyman cites for Kemp (.355/.444/.719) are amazing, they should be taken with a grain of salt because they were accumulated in 100 fewer trips to the plate than other National League stars. Joey Votto, for instance, has a similar .360/.480/.640 triple-slash line and plays an inferior defensive position, but still has accumulated far more Wins Above Replacement than Kemp (3.8 to 2.3) because, um, he's played a lot more (246 plate appearances to 144). So who else has been more valuable, according to WAR, than Kemp? Eleven players: Votto, David Wright, Michael Bourn, Martin Prado, Ryan Braun, Yadier Molina, Carlos Ruiz, Jed Lowrie, A.J. Ellis, Chase Headley, and Melky Cabrera. That group will only grow as Kemp remains stuck at 2.3 WAR for the next three weeks and he's passed by the likes of Andrew McCutchen, Giancarlo Stanton, and a bunch of others.

There is, of course, still time for Kemp to make up the lost time and mash his way to the MVP award. But at this point? Picking Matt Kemp as the MVP of the early-season? Over guys like Votto and Wright who have been just as good, far more often? Sorry, but nope. Position players have to contribute to more than 60% of their team's games to be considered the most valuable player in their league.

Just Wrong On So Many Levels

Andy Pettitte has been in the news a lot recently, thanks to his high-profile testimony for the government in the Roger Clemens case, during his attempt at a major league comeback. Much has been made of Pettitte's admission that he may have misunderstood Clemens when the embattled former ace supposedly told Pettitte he used Human Growth Hormone. And if there's some controversial baseball news that also happens to include future Hall of Fame candidates, you can bet Jon Heyman of CBS Sports has something ignorant to say. He actually manages to be spectacularly wrong on a variety of different layers in his article entitled, "Pettitte's under-oath about-face costs him one Hall of Fame vote -- this one."

Heyman's words are quoted and in bold font:

"Yankees pitching great Andy Pettitte may have gotten Roger Clemens out of a jail sentence with his misremembering the other day in court. But Pettitte's contradictory testimony cost himself a chance of at least one Hall of Fame vote -- mine."

The above statement shatters all previously-held records for total number of false premises stuffed into two sentences.

"Pettitte's candidacy is a longshot, to be sure, and it depends on at least two factors. 

One, a voter probably has to weigh career impact over career statistics (assuming he doesn't stick around for a few more years and dramatically boost those numbers). And two, a voter probably has to take Pettitte at his word that he only used HGH twice, and only then to recover from injuries."

The voters aren't only taking Pettitte at his word. They're taking the word of everyone who played in the steroid era. Did Jeff Bagwell take PEDs? Mike Piazza? Jeff Kent? Ivan Rodriguez? Pettitte? Who knows? Nobody, really. So we're giving all of them the benefit of the doubt.

"The second claim is suddenly hard to swallow.

Pettitte lied for years when it came to his PED use, denying he ever took any such drugs right up until the day things got serious and baseball-appointed drug czar George Mitchell and the feds got involved. Then Pettitte changed his story to include two instances of HGH use, but only for recovery purposes.

We who knew Pettitte as an exceeedingly pleasant and God-fearing man nodded right along with him. But now, how can we be so sure he was telling the truth then?"

But more importantly, how can we be so sure he isn't an alien spy from Neptune? I for one am horrified that the government is wasting resources on a steroid investigation while embedded space invaders walk amongst our children.

"Suddenly on the stand in federal court last week, Pettitte changed his story about Clemens. And remarkably, he changed it from one day to the next. It is fair to assume he wasn't being completely truthful one of those two days."

There is no way to say this except: You are wrong. Just, like, ignorant of the facts. But rather than explain why, I'll first allow Heyman to present the entirety of his misguided, hyperbole-laden rant:

"Under questioning by government lawyers, Pettitte, who's trying for a baseball comeback with the Yankees, said Clemens told him about Clemens' own HGH use while the pair were working out together back in 1999 or 2000. That was a powerful point against Clemens.

Then only one day later, under questioning by Clemens' lawyers, Pettitte said he may have misunderstood the key HGH conversation. In fact, it's now 50-50 he misunderstood, he answered to Clemens attorney Michael Attanasio. "I'd say that's fair,'' Pettitte lamely answered to Attanasio.

Pettitte's under-oath changeup is so pathetic, Clemens' defense team is arguing Monday to strike his entire testimony, and I won't blame Judge Walton if he agrees. Pettitte's testimony was viewed by many as the key to the government's case, and now it can be thrown out.

While Pettitte won't face charges for his lame, less-then-honest performance (the government is understandably done with the steroids-in-baseball cases after Clemens), Pettitte may have torpedoed a worthwhile yet expensive case of perjury against Clemens with his sudden case of amnesia regarding a conversation he's been testifying consistently about for nearly five years.

I get that Pettitte is conflicted and doesn't want to help send his idol, Clemens, to the slammer. But if Pettitte is willing to bend the truth under oath to aid someone else, why should we believe his own story of two usages of HGH only for recovery and no usages of steroids?"

Okay, so, that was a fun little fantasy. But Heyman completely disregards a crucial fact. Pettitte did admit that there was a 50-50 chance he misunderstood Clemens. But he never suggested otherwise. The story has never changed.

Pettitte has always allowed for the possibility of misinterpretation. Not just throughout this recent testimony. Since 2008.

Pettitte's deposition in 2008 is public record. According to Pettitte, he had a conversation with Clemens in 1999 from which he got the impression Clemens was using PEDs. They had another conversation in 2005, during which Pettitte asked Clemens about his usage. Clemens responded with confusion, claiming Pettitte must have misunderstood the 1999 conversation. In his 2008 testimony, Pettitte was asked about his reaction to Clemens' apparent flip-flop. His recorded answer:

"Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him."

The follow-up question:

"Do you think it's likely that you did misunderstand what Clemens had told you then?"

And again, Pettitte's answer:

"I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me that he had taken it.  And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."

So since '08, Pettitte has allowed for the possibility of misinterpretation. Yet Heyman writes as if Pettitte changed his story from one day of last week's testimony to the next. Some of the phrases that appear in the Heyman quotes above:

under-oath about-face
changed his story
wasn't being completely truthful
lamely answered
Pettitte's under-oath changeup is so pathetic
lame, less than-honest performance
sudden case of amnesia
willing to bend the truth under oath

Now, it's not like Pettitte is being 100% clear or helpful. It's fair to call him wishy-washy. But essentially accusing him of changing his story from Day 1 to Day 2 (aka, perjury) when in fact his story has been consistent from Year 1 to Year 5, is bordering on slander.

"There are people who are going to say Pettitte isn't a Hall of Famer anyway, that he didn't win enough games, strike out enough batters or make enough All-Star teams."

Wait--an actual baseball argument being made? Hurrah! Relevant facts stick out like a sore thumb in this article.

Anyway, I agree with the "people" Heyman generally references above. Pettitte really isn't a Hall of Famer based on the numbers, and I didn't need false claims of perjury to sway my opinion on that.

"But Pettitte is the only pitcher to begin his career with 16 seasons without a single losing season (Tom Seaver and Grover Alexander started with 15), his 19 career postseason victories is the most in history (and makes it 259 total victories), and he's one of 26 pitchers who are at least 100 games over .500, with 18 of those pitchers in the Hall of Fame and six more not yet eligible (according to YESNetwork.com)."

And after being wrong about the facts of Pettitte's legal history, Heyman is also wrong about Pettitte's worthiness of Cooperstown consideration. All three of those pro-Pettitte arguments are based on wins. Regular season wins are a reflection of run support, bullpen strength, and luck. Postseason wins are a reflection of all of those things, plus sheer bulk of opportunity. Neither statistic is adequate to evaluate Hall of Fame candidacy. In fact, I scoff at using individual victories to make a Cooperstown case.

"Some from the stat set may scoff at individual victories making a Cooperstown case."

Hey, that's me!

"But there's more. Five times Pettitte finished in the top six in Cy Young voting."

Fair enough. But arguably, he only deserved two of those five finishes. In the other three, his ERAs were 3.87, 4.02, and 4.35. Hardly elite. A lot of those Cy Young votes were based on the success of the Yankees' dynasty at the time, plus his gaudy win totals and the New York media.

"The most similar pitcher to him is Mike Mussina, a clear Hall-of-Fame candidate by most accounts, according to Baseball-Reference.com. So Pettitte is at least a serious Cooperstown candidate based on on-field merit."

I don't know what Heyman is looking at, but Baseball-Reference.com has Mike Mussina listed as the fourth-most similar pitcher to Pettitte. The top three are David Wells, Kevin Brown, and Bob Welch. That seems like the perfect tier for Pettitte--a very good pitcher, and one who will receive some Hall consideration, but ultimately not worthy. Again, this is because his career ERA is pushing towards 4.00 and his career strikeout and WHIP numbers are 'meh' and his peak wasn't very high. Not because of some random testimony against Roger Clemens.

"Some may say still his career comes up short, and that's fine if they do. Others may reflexively rule him out based on using HGH at all, and that's up to them."

Hey, look at that, rational thinking is fun.

"But I was of a belief that his impact via big October wins might earn him my vote..."

Ah yes, Pettitte is a frequent recipient of the Jack Morris Award in the Big October Wins Category. But here's a quick quiz: identify the following Mystery Pitchers.

Mystery Pitcher A: 3.88 ERA, 6.6 K/9, 1.35 WHIP
Mystery Pitcher B: 3.83 ERA, 5.9 K/9, 1.30 WHIP

Pitcher A is Andy Pettitte in the regular season. Pitcher B is Andy Pettitte in the playoffs. So yeah, he had some big postseason wins because he pitched for a postseason juggernaut. But he was basically the exact same pitcher in October as he was in May or August. Hardly a playoff hero.

"...and also that I might be able to overlook the two admitted HGH usages as a pair of weak moments for a pitcher with an imperfect elbow."

I don't agree with Heyman's assessment of Pettitte's career, but I like that he's willing to overlook admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs in general when it comes to his Cooperstown ballot. At least that will give worthier-yet-stained candidates like Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire the consideration they deserve.

Oh, wait, I forgot. Heyman is on the record as saying that he won't ever vote for Palmeiro or McGwire. Bit a double-standard there, maybe?

"Now, though, his own sympathetic HGH story comes into serious question. If he's willing to suddenly misremember under oath for a good buddy, it's easy to think now Pettitte only admitted to what he had to admit to. Maybe Pettitte isn't quite the truthteller we gave him credit for, and maybe there is some other explanation for how his fastball velocity increased to 93/94 mph somewhere in the middle of his career.

I'd say the chances are 50-50 (at best) that Pettitte misremembered his own supposedly very limited usage."

Hey, Jon: you've voted for Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, and Don Mattingly for the Hall, while excluding Jeff Bagwell and Edgar Martinez. You may never vote for Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire. And you're throwing out Pettitte's case because of some ridiculous notion you have about some irrelevant testimony. So tell me, why should I ever listen to anything you have to say?

Jon Heyman Doesn't Get It

Jon Heyman, Self-Proclaimed Baseball Insider, unleashed this unmercifully ignorant Tweet tonight:

the #moneyball a's lead AL w/ 14 steals & are second worst in obp at .277 (to seattle, thanks to humber's perfecto)

For (what seems like) the one-billionth time: Moneyball is not about on-base percentage.

Not. About. On-base percentage.

Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiencies. At the time--a good ten years ago, mind you--on-base percentage happened to be an inefficiency that the A's pursued. At the expense of things like speed and defense, which some felt were overvalued (as seen in the Johnny Damon contract, among others).

Believe it or not, Jon: the market has changed since 2002.

On-base percentage is definitely fairly valued now. Players like Adam Dunn have finally been recognized, and paid, for the value they provide (though a bit too late in Dunn's case).

Accordingly, the A's have actually swung in the opposite direction, towards speed and defense, sometimes even at the expense of OBP (as seen in their second-to-last ranking in that category). Heck, last offseason they tried to throw money at Adrian Beltre, an accomplished OBP hole but an elite defender at third. The Rays made the same philosophical transition a few years back--they consistently save the most defensive runs in the majors each year, and look how they're doing. 

Also, Jon, if you would take a moment to examine Oakland's roster, you'd quickly realize what the A's are aiming for. Their starting lineup features players like: Kurt Suzuki, Daric Barton, Cliff Pennington, Jemile "Brother of Rickie" Weeks, Josh Reddick, Coco Crisp, etc. All of those players are either good defenders and/or fast. Most all are ridiculously cheap, and are all the A's can afford right now. None are OBP specialists.

It is quite incorrect to imply that A) the A's worship at the feet of the All-Powerful OBP Deity and B) that Moneyball is equivalent to OBP in any way.

It's even more incorrect to Tweet about it snidely.

This is Why Blogs are Dangerous

Jon Heyman has a blog. Did you know this? I did not. At least not until I stumbled upon it through this headline:

PINEDA-MONTERO TRADE MIGHT BE 1-SIDED, BUT MAYBE NOT THE WAY YOU THOUGHT

Never before has a headline made so giddy and angry simultaneously. I mean, this is delicious. Judging a trade two months after its completion based on spring training results? Yum yum yum. And it actually gets even better. Heyman says:

The big trade of the winter sent Pineda and pitching prospect Jose Campos to the Yankees for Montero and young righthanded pitcher Hector Noesi And judging by the respective springs of the key young men in the deal -- Pineda and Montero -- so far it's no contest.

This is all factually correct, because it's always fair to say that a trade is "no contest" based on some preseason games (which are incalculably significant in all sports). Look no further than 2008, when the Detroit Lions used a perfect preseason to then go undefeated* in the regular season.

*Assuming of course that your definition of "undefeated" is "winless."

According to Heyman, "the Mariners' end of the trade looks pretty darned good" because of the following reasons:

1. Jesus Montero has two homers and 10 RBIs
2. "The other day Montero gunned down veteran basestealer Brandon Phillips"
3. "Mariners people" believe Montero will be able to catch
4. Michael Pineda "looks rather ordinary in Yankees camp" and "is struggling to prove he belongs in the Yankees rotation"
5. Pineda is "the mystery of the deal"

Right then. Where to even begin?

Never mind that Pineda has been working on getting into game shape and refining his changeup, and he owns a 3.31 ERA and 16 strikeouts in 16.1 innings. Never mind that he can't possibly be the "mystery" of the deal, since he's the only component of the trade with a full major league season under his belt. Never mind that he's probably not lighting up the radar gun because, well, it's MARCH you nimrod.

Never mind that the evidence Heyman provides to support Montero's defense is composed of A) that one time when he threw out Brandon Phillips, who was successful in just 61% of his steal attempts last year, and B) praise given by Mariners people, who obviously must think he can catch or they wouldn't have acquired him in the first place. And anyway, of course the Mariners are going to praise Montero when Heyman asks them about their future star. What are they going to say? "No, we think he's too fat to catch, and we made a mistake trading for him, and our organization is stupid, make sure you put all that in your blog"??? I doubt it.

Now, never mind the fact that all of Heyman's "analysis" is based on spring training--a.k.a., practice games that don't mean anything, a universe in which Ryan Raburn is the best slugger in the sport and NL MVP Ryan Braun is a .095 hitter.

You can ignore all of that, and still think Heyman's argument is idiotic, just by looking at these numbers:

16.1 and 36.

Pineda's innings this spring. And Montero's at-bats this spring.

The sample size is so small, it's nearly worthless, yet Heyman is using it to judge a premature trade victor. Pineda could've given up 18 runs in those 16.1 innings, and Montero could've hit .650 in those 36 at-bats, and we obviously still wouldn't be able to make any definitive statement about these players or the trade they were involved in. It will take YEARS to know who "won" this trade, not three weeks of meaningless spring games. Heck, forget about Montero and Pineda, we'll need to know how the career of Jose freaking Campos turns out before we can judge the deal, and he'll be throwing to Single-A hitters this year.

This has been a very long-winded way of saying that Jon Heyman's blog is a broadcast tower of ignorance, and because of that, I will be eagerly visiting it twice daily.