Erasing the Mendoza Line
When Mario Mendoza played his last season in the majors in 1982, he appeared in just 12 games and batted a paltry .118/.118/.118; his wRC+ was -41. If all you know about the former shortstop is that his name has become synonymous with failure at the plate, those numbers likely aren’t all that surprising.
During Mendoza’s time with the Mariners in 1979 and ’80, he struggled to keep his average above .200, inspiring teammates Bruce Bochte and Tom Paciorek to tease him, dubbing the elusive mark “The Mendoza Line.” The joke might have ended there, but Royals slugger George Brett caught wind of the phrase when he got off to a sluggish start to the 1980 season, to the amusement of Bochte and Paciorek. According to Mendoza, his Seattle teammates told Brett, “Hey, man, you’re going to sink down below the Mendoza Line if you’re not careful.” Brett later mentioned it to ESPN’s Chris Berman from ESPN; it spread from there.
There’s a bit of a poetic twist to Brett being the one who helped popularize the expression. He started the season telling Berman, “The first thing I look for in the Sunday papers is who is below the Mendoza Line.” And while his early-season returns were below his lofty standards (he hit .245 in April, albeit with a 137 wRC+ and just a .245 BABIP), by mid-September he was hitting .394 ahead of a series against the Mariners, with a real chance to finish the season with an average above .400. Brett only went 2-for-11 that series, though, with three hits robbed by Mendoza himself; he ended the season at .390.
In terms of the actual statistic itself, the Mendoza Line is generally understood to be the .200 batting average the shortstop chased in 1979 (he ended the year hitting just .198). What it truly represents, however, is the point at which a player’s offense makes them a liability to their team, regardless of their defensive abilities.
Now make no mistake, Mendoza was not a good player in the majors. His career line was .215/.245/.262. He had a career wRC+ of 38 and a career WAR of -2.9. Bad numbers, absolutely, though it should be noted that once we eliminate pitcher batting averages, Mendoza isn’t the absolute worst. That unfortunate title belongs to Bill Bergan, who we’ll talk about later. Still, despite his anemic bat and otherwise unremarkable career, Mendoza’s lackluster seasonal numbers in 1979 shouldn’t be all he’s known for. In the 1980 season, when George Brett used the phrase off the cuff, Mendoza actually had a .245 season. After Mendoza left MLB, he returned to his home country of Mexico and played so well he gained the nickname “Silk Hands” for his fielding. He managed in both the MiLB and the Mexican League until 2013. He was ultimately was inducted into the Mexican League Hall of Fame.
Those accolades don’t come to mind for most people when they hear “the Mendoza Line,” though, and all because a much better and more well-known player popularized a clubhouse joke. It’s highly unlikely that Brett was being intentionally cruel; he couldn’t have known what a lasting impact he would have when he used the now-infamous phrase. But the fact of the matter is that without all the press attention on Brett’s run at a .400 season, we probably wouldn’t even remember Mendoza’s name today, for better or worse.
The expression stands out for another reason. In a game where every aspect of on-field play seems to have a charming nickname, many of which are named for food (see: grand salami, ribeye, lobster, can of corn), very few are named for people. Pitchers can throw a Maddux, of course, but beyond that and the Mendoza Line, few plays take their sobriquets from those who originated them. There is another baseball term with a negative connotation that once had a player-named association, but the connection to the original player has been lost over the years. TOOTBLAN, the acronym for Thrown Out on the Basepaths Like a Nincompoop, was actually once connected to one player in particular. Chicago Cubs infielder Ryan Theriot had a bad habit of getting caught on the basepaths, leading to Chicago blogger Tony Jewell creating “The Ryan Theriot Adjusted On-Base Percentage” to account for his caught stealing attempts. TOOTBLAN only dates back to 2008, and has already lost its connection to Theriot, yet the Mendoza Line persists.
In baseball, where everything can be converted into an acronym or food-based nickname, there must be better options to reference a player’s sub-optimal offense. Let’s assess a few of the alternatives. If we wanted to stick with a player’s name, the “Bergen Line” would be a much more accurate choice, as Bill Bergen’s career line was just .170/.194/.201.
Bergen, a catcher for the Cincinnati Reds and Brooklyn Superbas/Dodgers between 1901 and 1911, only hit two home runs over his entire career, an impressive feat over 11 seasons even in the Deadball Era. He remained valuable to his teams because, like Mendoza, he was a great defensive player. He had a career caught stealing percentage of 48%. But being a strong catcher didn’t help him when it came to his performance at the plate, and Bergen has yet to be eclipsed by another player in terms of such a poor average over such a long career. All this makes Bergen seems a far more likely candidate to be the name we associate with a rock bottom average. (He’s also unlikely to feel hurt by the phrase, as he has long since passed away.)
And if we don’t want to defame a player’s name, and a food reference is more your speed, perhaps the player is “burning a steak.” When a steak is burnt and the grill “lines” are obliterated, it doesn’t matter how good the cut was, because the flavor is gone. Baseball announcers do seem to love talking about barbecue, so this would probably be an easy adjustment.
One last option would be to go with the ever-popular acronym. To wit, I offer you BADBAT: Batting Average Detrimental to Baseball Activities in Total.
Regardless of what replaces it, it’s high time to erase the Mendoza Line. Baseball is a sport that is at its best when it highlights positive achievements rather than attaching player names to lifetime poor performances. New fans won’t be garnered by knowing which player is flirting with a sub-.200 average. It’s unfair to Mendoza, who accomplished so much after leaving the majors, to still be associated with what he didn’t do. Mendoza might have been a bad major league hitter, but it shouldn’t be what defines his career or keeps his name in use even now. While he’s never outright said he dislikes the phrase, he has noted “That is all people remember me for.”
It’s not exactly the legacy any player wants to leave behind. After all, who among us wants to be remembered for our worst season?
Ashley has spent the last several years writing for various SB Nation sites, including Bless You Boys, DRaysBay, and Bleed Cubbie Blue. Her bylines have appeared here at Fangraphs; Hardball Times; BPro Short Relief and more. She hosts a baseball YouTube channel called 90 Feet From Home, and co-hosts the baseball podcast Who's On Worst.
George Brett had it right where most people get it wrong. The actual “line” of the Mendoza Line is from the Sunday newspaper. Most cities Sunday paper would print the baseball stats of every player in the league in one large data table. It was almost always ranked by batting average. If you were below Mario Mendoza in the Sunday paper you were in trouble, and that is what George Brett was referring to. It was never meant as a simple .200 average, but a moving target based on Mario Mendoza.
That’s even funnier and worse. It’s also extremely relatable. There’s a guy at work that as long as we all work harder than, we know we’re doing okay.
I believe that jtrichey has it right – however, the concept of the Mendoza line representing a batting average seems to have grown over time. While one hears of .200 as the line, in the past I have heard of even .250 referred to as the Mendoza line.
– Negative career WAR
– Paragraph about not being a good hitter and his biggest accomplishment being a good defender, manager and HOFer in a very weak league (Go Leones!)
– Next paragraph: THOSE ACCOLADES
Can’t wait for the Star Wars / Baseball crossover “BADBATCH” (Batting Average Detrimental to Baseball Activities in Total against Changeups)
Why not have both? The Mendoza line is bad. The Bergen line is really bad. I always thought it resonated because its similarity to another line famous for futility – the Maginot Line.
Lol this is definitely a 2021 article. Who cares. No one today would even know Mendoza’s name if not for this funny little phrase. So you’re trying to take away what actually made him famous and what made his name survive in baseball lore long after his playing days. 40 years after playing his last game, Ryan Theriot will be largely forgotten, but 40 years after his playing days the name of Mario Mendoza lives on.
Yet is it better to be infamous or not famous at all? Depending on the context, there can be different answers.
Having something named after you, even something rather inglorious, is an honor. No one’s saying he’s a bad person, just in the end, for a major leaguer, he was a pretty bad hitter. People know Mendoza, where otherwise, just about nobody would.
I thought the article would be about how batting average is a bad way to judge who falls below the Mendoza line. If someone is batting .199 but has 40 HR and walks a lot, they’re not really a terrible hitter.
Exactly.
Matt Olson 2020: .195 avg; 103 wRC+
Mark McGwire 1991: .201 AVG, 22 HRs, 93 BBs, 105 wRC+
It was still by far his worst healthy season save for his cup of coffee debut in ’86, but I guess it wasn’t as bad as it initially looks.
Meh
Some big names hitting below the Mendoza Line so far:
Lindor
Suarez
Stanton
Chapman
Albies
The man played catcher in the majors for almost a decade. If he was deeply hurt by the use of the term Mendoza line he wouldnt have had the mental fortitude to accomplish that feat. To erase this 40 years after he retired in some weird attempt to spare his feelings is honestly insulting.
Mendoza was a shortstop (who often hovered around .200). Bill Bergen was a catcher (who hit .170).
I was technically worth 2.9 *more* WAR than Mendoza?!?!?
Wooooooof.
No, you’d have to be replacement level for that to be true. You’re not better by not even playing.
WAR is not adjusted for how much playing time somebody actually gets. There are derived stats such as WAR/600 that are.
I didn’t say anything about playing time?
Well, maybe you should be in the Mexico hall of fame. Honestly, the fact that he stuck around so long must mean did something really well. Do we have any anecdotal evidence that he called games really well? Was he Jeff Mathis before Jeff Mathis?
He was a shortstop, not a catcher!
BADBAT is perfect! Anyway, with batting averages forever sliding downward with defensive shifts and today’s true outcome approach to hitting, the “Mendoza Line” (in the .200 context) may soon become a number to aspire towards! But there can be no confusion, regardless of era, that BADBAT is…well bad. Its a good time for a change of nomenclature
It is well-written, but it is much ado about nothing.
The writing is definitely above the Mendoza line.
Wait, so… why are we getting rid of the Mendoza Line? Mendoza, while being an incredibly talented baseball player relative to the total human population, was a bad MLBer! That is objectively true, with nearly -3 career WAR, and a 38 wRC+. It’s not insulting (and certainly not “cruel”) for a player with Mendoza’s stats to be synonymous with poor MLB-level performance. Mendoza Line is fine, and honestly kind of fun! And I mean… would anyone even know who Mario Mendoza was if not for this phrase?
Can’t say I’m jumping on the bandwagon on this one, especially as it’s noted “he’s never outright said he dislikes the phrase”. In fact, I think re-focusing it on another player deliberately would be mean spirited in a way that currently isn’t. Right now, few know who Mendoza was or where the term came from, they just use the term to mean “hitting below .200, which is bad”, so it’s hard to say that phrase, in the mind of the speaker, is a reference to a person more than it’s a reference to a statistic. If we instead deliberately sought and and tabbed, say, Chris Davis (my modern stand-in for general offensive ineptitude), that really would be personal!
The article here is too good-natured to be labeled as an attempt at language policing, but I do worry that it shares some common DNA with it. Not all terms that can be construed negatively are actually used negatively, or even necessarily received negatively by the listener.
I don’t really get the point of this article. Was there a recent controversy? Is Mendoza on record for disliking it? I’m not saying I disagree that it was perhaps born out of mean-spiritedness, nor would I care if they changed it to something else… it just feels like baseball lingo.
It kind of reminds me of the Futurama episode where Hank Aaron the 25th was the worst player to ever play and he cherished the honor because his place in Blernsball was always going to be there. Perhaps he looks at it fondly. If it were me, and I sucked (which I would), I don’t know, I’d chuckle and not care. I have my goofy little place in baseball for decades to come. But again, if he does, please change it. I’m just not sure that’s in demand. The quote at the end of the article feels ambiguous as well. I mean, he’s not going to be remembered as a good hitter. He wasn’t one. And if he rather not be remembered at all than this, I totally get and respect that. Just seems vague as presented.
I wish there was a little more in the way of stats or information in this piece than just alternate name suggestions in the like. I think exploring the Mendoza line and it’s history is a fascinating topic. And forgive me if I’m missing some context here. I know there’s worse hitters, as is alluded to…but I don’t know. Just kinda meh on it unless there’s a larger societal aspect I’m missing
Thought this was going to be about crawling out of an early-season slump or something.
Garret Cooper knows something about slumps!
He’ll snap out of it…he’ll snap out of it…
This is the content that FG wants us to pay for.
You know, it’s okay to make light of certain failures. I’m sure Mendoza isn’t crying himself to sleep every night thinking about George Brett being a batting average bully. /eyeroll
I will say, I think what you primarily pay for is the data and the platform. What FG offers in the way of resources is second to none. I mean, there’s nothing even remotely as comprehensive as ZIPS. Then they add things like roster resource, statcast data, etc – and I don’t think there’s a reason not to subscribe and support the staff.
With that, I did find the article quality very below standards for what FanGraphs is today. I enjoy when FanGraphs engages in societal dialogue and the perspective they bring to those conversations are one I find paramount (ie Craig Edwards last year on labor negotiations, articles on injustice, etc). This feels like it’s making an issue out of thin air. Very different.
And I’m not ragging on the author, everyone’s first articles here weren’t great. I’m excited to see future posts for all the newcomers as they find their footing. But, I did want to say that as a subscriber, I think perhaps this one wasn’t great. But not every one will be!
I got really curious about this because, frankly, what matters to me is what Mario Mendoza thinks about all this. The short answer, from what I can gather, is that it was pretty awful for him, he’s mostly gotten over it, but he’d still rather have it be named after something other than a person (and specifically, not after another player). For him, it sounds like the worst thing would be to name it after someone else, since he’s learned to deal with it.
But that article was in 2010; there’s another article behind a paywall; if anyone has an Athletic description and can update it with what is there, he might have changed his mind (in either direction).
I tried putting the links in the box but they got blocked; at some point they’ll probably be approved but one was an article in the St Louis Post Dispatch in 2010 (Jul 6; also linked in the article here) and the other was the Athletic in 2020 (from April 6th).
Bob Uecker got 146 hits in 731 at bats for a .1997 lifetime batting average, so I’ve always called it The Uecker Line.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that Bob Ueker would not complain at all.
“I signed with the Milwaukee Braves for three-thousand dollars. That bothered my dad at the time because he didn’t have that kind of dough. But he eventually scraped it up.” -Bob Ueker.
“If a guy hits .300 every year, what does he have to look forward to? I always tried to stay around .190, with three or four RBI. And I tried to get them all in September. That way I always had something to talk about during the winter.” -Also Bob Uecker
I thought this was a really fun article, even if I don’t agree with all of its conclusions. To me, the Mendoza Line will always refer to a .200 batting average…
My favorite tidbits from this article were hearing about the connection to George Brett and the fact that Mendoza stole hits from him at the very end of his .390 season, learning about Mendoza’s success in his home country, and realizing Mendoza reached the MLB postseason.
His career postseason batting average?
.200
This whole article got me thinking about the best nicknames in baseball. My vote goes to Randy “Big Unit” Johnson.
The player who deserves the ink as the true hero of sub .200 hitters has to be Jeff Mathis. He got to carry his lifetime .194 batting average through 16, that’s right, sixteen seasons in the major leagues.
Main reason not to change it to the Bergen line is because Bergen lived in an almost unrecognizable time period. Like axe murders were a relatively normal occurrence.; like his brother.
Not only was his brother an ax murderer who almost decapitated himself with a straight razor, but without actually looking it up I would be willing to bet that he has the lowest career WAR (-1.0) of any player who received Hall of Fame votes in multiple years (1938 and 1939).
Thank you both – I learned two crazy interesting and very different things that I had no idea about. These are the fun, filling morsels I come for.
Mendoza line is just fine. I look at players stats all the time, if I see a 1 at the start of the batting average, there is definitely a negative connotation with that player. I also expect to see more hits than strike outs.
Baseball Between the Numbers had a great discussion of Mario Mendoza.
Here’s the thing: Mendoza was (if not the, at least close to) the least good ball player to have a long-term career.
That makes Mario Mendoza a truly great ball player.
I’m of age to have witnessed Mendoza’s sorry act in Seattle and have always understood the Mendoza Line to refer specifically to the .200 threshold, especially as Bochte and Paciorek, two pretty decent hitters I might add, might well have known what any kid reading the back of the baseball card knew – 1979 was the fourth time in a six season career that Mendoza batted below .200! Mario sounds like a swell guy, but “Mendoza Line” is gonna outlive him.
This just in. Only 127 qualifying major leaguers are hitting above the Mendoza line. That’s 4.25 per team. I know it’s early, but…….. Heck, a position player on the Cardinals (who will remain anonymous except of course to Cardinals fans) is barely hitting room temperature.
Been thinking about something a lot lately:
How much healthier would the game be, if the average good-not-great hitter (~.350 wOBA/110-120 wRC+) looked like Mike Brantley, rather than Joey Gallo?
🙄
Oh, BADBAT is a great ACRONYM (Alphabetically Concise Representation of Ordering Numerous Yammerings by their Monograms)! I don’t think the Mendoza Line really needs to be replaced, but if we had to pick a replacement, definitely go with that.
I think the “Mendoza line” has an inexplicable good ring to it and so it’s probably never going away. I also think that the “good news” for the man himself is that most people probably don’t actually know who he is at all.
On the other hand, I do feel for him. It’s like when someone plays a joke on you and you have to grin and go along with it or else you’ll look like a poor sport, except that it lasts your whole life.
Calling something the Mendoza Line is more embarrassing than calling something Merkle’s Boner?
With all that’s happening with actual, live baseball, this is what you decided to write about?
A couple of years ago I referenced the Mendoza line in passing to my now 8 yr old. Many questions later, he now says Mendoza is his favorite player. His most prized possession (other than a megalodon tooth) is a signed Mendoza card.
Is this tongue is cheek or serious about trying to protect Mr. Mendoza’s legacy? Seems a little over-wrought to me. What about others? “Wrong Way” Riegels? Ralph Branca? Fred Merkle? Every player with “Fats” in their nickname? Life ain’t fair sometimes. I will say thanks for pointing out that Mario Mendoza had a fine career in baseball in spite of being a poor hitter when compared to the very best hitters on the planet.
I don’t hear the phrase much anymore and I think the reason is we now have Replacement Level.
Meh, the context of Bochte and Paciorek’s remarks are on point and I saw him and he could pick it. This is not Little League and it should stay.