FanGraphs Weekly Mailbag: May 2, 2026
I don’t pay too much attention to the standings in April. I look at them, of course, but that’s more a matter of routine than a desire to learn something substantial. It’s hard for teams to pull ahead of the pack this early in the season, and I’d rather not read too much into the fact that, say, the banged-up Blue Jays are a few games below .500, or that none of the five teams in the NL Central has a losing record. It takes time for these things to sort themselves out.
And yet, upon checking the standings Friday morning, I found myself pondering the significance of what I saw: specifically, that only three teams in the American League had a winning record. After a dizzying 20 minutes of digging, I lifted my head from my laptop in a daze, wondering how the heck I ended up staring at Baseball Reference’s playoff odds for the 14-18 White Sox. I think seeing the number 16.1% is what snapped me out of my stupor. (For what it’s worth, our Playoff Odds gave the South Siders a 2.2% chance to make the postseason, double their odds on Opening Day.) Anyway, about those three AL clubs above .500, the Yankees (20-11) were expected to be one of the best teams in baseball, so their place atop the standings wasn’t surprising, but the strong starts of the Rays (18-12) and Athletics (17-14) caught me a bit off guard. I thought Tampa Bay was destined for last place when the season began, and our Playoff Odds agreed, projecting the team to finish with 79.7 wins and giving it a 28.9% shot to reach the postseason. Entering May, the Rays have only added about two wins to their median projection (81.9), but they now have a 45.6% chance of making the playoffs. Meanwhile, I believed the A’s would be better this year, but better meant maybe a third-place finish in the AL West and an outside shot to snag the final AL Wild Card spot. Still, I figured they were more likely still a year or two away from true contention. Our preseason Playoff Odds tabbed them for 78 wins and a 21.4% shot at the playoffs. Now, they’re up to a projected 81.3 wins and 43.1% odds. I still don’t think either team will play postseason baseball this year; according to both their Pythagorean and BaseRuns records, the Rays have played more like a .500 team than one that’s on pace to win 97 games, while the A’s simply don’t have enough pitching. Remember, it’s only the start of May. There’s so much more baseball still to be played.
OK, that’s enough about the Rays and A’s in this week’s mailbag. Today, we’ll be answering your questions about how good Shohei Ohtani would be at basketball, whether James Wood is one of the best lefty batters ever at hitting the ball the other way, which batter has the most hits against a pitcher without recording an out, and what would happen if ZiPS forgot about 2020. But before we get to all of that, I’d like to remind you that this mailbag is exclusive to FanGraphs Members. If you aren’t yet a Member and would like to keep reading, you can sign up for a Membership here. It’s the best way to both experience the site and support our staff, and it comes with a bunch of other great benefits. Also, if you’d like to ask a question for an upcoming mailbag, send me an email at mailbag@fangraphs.com.
Matt is the associate editor of FanGraphs. Previously, he was the baseball editor at Sports Illustrated. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Men’s Health, Baseball Prospectus, and Lindy’s Sports Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @ByMattMartell and Blue Sky @mattmartell.bsky.social.
Aaron Judge, who, and James Wood? That could use a deep dive all its own.
Also, I’m pretty confident Jordan was better than LeBron on a per-minute or per-game basis. I’m… less confident per-career.
To me, it’s like a Ruth or Judge debate. Not quite, but similar concept. Judge and LeBron play against much better competition and are undeniably superior athletes in their prime. Jordan and Ruth were more dominant in their era (at least in Jordan’s case in terms of winning). So which do you prefer? Very subjective
Don’t let anyone tell you Jordan’s era was tougher because of hand checking and hard fouls. No one back then started lineups with 4 guys over 6’9″ who could all shoot like they do now
I think the big difference between the Ruth vs Judge debate and Lebron vs Jordan debate is that in the 1950s there was a sudden influx of players from the Negro Leagues (and Latin America). It was much faster and led to a steeper increase in competition than international players entering the NBA. To the point that you can’t really even include players pre-integration in any discussions of “the best.”
There was so little competition that the game was unrecognizable. There is no “Ruth vs Judge” because Ruth doesn’t even enter into a discussion of “the best” IMO. 1990s basketball was less competitive to today but unless you’re willing to exclude Jordan out of hand because of his era I think it’s not analogous.
That said, the quality of play is better in the NBA now because the international stars (guys who were born to non-Americans abroad and who grew up outside the US) during Jordan’s peak was maybe 10 players? Hakeem Olajuwon, Dikembe Mutombo, Arvydas Sabonis, Vlade Divac, Drazen Petrovic, Manute Bol, Detlef Schrempf…that’s seven. I think the state of Texas alone has had better international stars on their teams during Lebron’s career (Nowitzki, Wemby, Ginobili, Yao Ming, Tony Parker, Doncic).
Expansion largely offsets the statistical effect of integration. It’s also worth remember that in Ruth’s day, all of this country’s best athletes played baseball rather than being split with football and basketball. And even if you want to ignore all that, we have statistics that allow us to compare Ruth’s performance against his peers. We know that he was better relative to his era than any player has been since then.
Plus Rik Smits, Toni Kukoc, Peja Stojakovic, and Pau Gasol. There were a lot more international players back then than you’re suggesting. You’re also forgetting that Jordan played against Tony Parker and Dirk Nowitzki.
“… in Ruth’s day, all of this country’s best athletes played baseball rather than being split with football and basketball.”
Seems odd to roll that out there without at least noting that a lot of the best baseball players in Ruth’s time weren’t allowed to play in MLB, for [bad] reasons.
(Fangraphs ate my original comment as “spam” for some reason, so I’ll repost in truncated form.)
The biggest difference in the Jordan vs. LeBron and Ruth vs. Judge debates isn’t timing of MLB integration. The far bigger difference is the huge gap in time between the careers of the latter.
Jordan and James were within a season of having overlapping careers (counting Jordan’s late career comeback with the Wizards). They had respective MVP seasons separated by only approximately 10 years. A decent number of players and coaches can comment first-hand on competing against both players in their respective primes.
Ruth and Judge’s careers are separated by 80 years. Even in a hypothetical world where MLB had been integrated in Ruth’s era, a comparison of the two would still require big qualifiers such as wondering how Ruth would handle modern pitching velocity and movement, presumably subject to the assumption that Ruth also would have access to modern player development, video study, etc.
Jordan leads LeBron in both the regular season and playoffs in all three of PER, WS/48, and BPM. More to basketball than that but it helps my confidence level there. Nothing to do with rings plumbers etc.
As I recall, all of those relate directly to what other players are doing at the same time, similarly to WAR. So if players are scoring less efficiently/committing more turnovers etc. then a players stats get better relative to his peers.
For me Jordan vs LeBron is just as simple as two points:
1. Do you value outright scoring prowess more than all around statistical contribution?
2. Do you value a player peaking and being be best player in the world while on the best team in the world and win everything or is it more impressive to be the best player in the world on either bad/suboptimally constructed/injured teams and make consistent deep playoff runs regardless of team quality?
I don’t think there’s a “right” answer. Different people value different skills.
The all-around statistical contribution clearly favors Jordan. All of his defensive statistics are superior to LeBron’s. James is higher in rebounds, but not by much (1.3). His only big lead is in assists (2.1).
That’s exactly the point. The lineups in Jordan’s era had tenacious point guards, bruisers at small forward, and genuine rim protectors at center. It was far, far more difficult to score back then than it is now that everyone is focused on getting the ball back to shoot a three at the other end.
There is simply no question that Michael Jordan was a significantly superior scorer to LeBron James. The stats on that are beyond question. What I don’t think many younger people realize is that Jordan was also a superior defender. Not only did he average half again more steals per game than LeBron, he even averaged more blocks per game than James, all while covering the opponent’s best shooter.
The argument is more that players played hard in Jordan’s era because they could get away with it, but also because they didn’t have the equivalent talent to compete otherwise. It’s not quite as simple as more spacing making it easier for teams to score now as well, because it’s also about player talent increasing.
Sure you can space the floor and have access to the rim that someone like Jordan in the 80s would destroy, but that spacing is created by talent that can punish you for not defending the 3. More players are taking 3s, yet still maintaining an average 3pt % higher than in the 80s or 90s.
Not to mention that this era of where analytics took over the NBA pushing teams to shoot more 3s and creating space isn’t even half of Lebron’s career.
I have been fascinated with the AL only having three winning teams for a week or two now. Now it’s four, so it’s a little less weird, but a team below .500 would still make the playoffs. Only one team looks like they’re in an especially strong position right now (the Yankees), and nobody appears to be out of it yet.
The Guardians and A’s are both leading their divisions despite having negative run differentials. Neither one is projected to have more than a 40% chance of making the playoffs.
The Astros have a .364 winning percentage. They have negative pitching fWAR. Thanks to a terrible infield defense they are underperforming their FIP by nearly three quarters of a run, giving up six runs per game on average. They are also only 4 games out of the wild card, and it’s no longer April.
The chaos engulfing the Red Sox has been good entertainment for non-Sox fans but they are only 2.5 games out of a wild card spot. The Phillies and Mets are 6 and 8 games out. The vibes for the Red Sox are bad but I would much rather be in the Red Sox’s position than the Phillies / Mets. They are one hot streak way from leaping over six to eight teams right now.
At least two thirds of the AL teams have played quite badly, and everything is up for grabs.
How it’s been going for the AL so far: The Rockies are 6-3 in interleague play. (2-1 against the Jays and 4-2 against the Astros.)
The Reds have been .500 against NL teams and 13-5 against AL teams!
And by some scheduling quirk, the NL Central has played a lot of interleague games. The Reds, Brewers, and Cardinals have played 18 interleague games each vs. 13 or 14 NL games–the Brewers’ first 12 games were all against the AL.
The Tigers are the only team with more interleague games; they’re 11-10 against a very strong group of NL teams (the only one under .500 is the Marlins, who they swept).
Hey, stop ragging on the White Sox. They are the hottest team in the AL!
In all seriousness, though, they are right around 20th in hitting, pitching, and defense. I think they’ve improved from poverty to solidly lower-middle class.
I think one of the most interesting stories from this season so far is that the three teams everyone picked to be terrible – the White Sox, Rockies, and Nationals – all look pretty competent. None of them are good, but all of them can and have put up a fight against good teams.
I think we’re going to have to see a run of injuries before a team separates themselves from the pack as the worst in MLB.
The other day I noticed that the Angels were the only team with a really bad record out of the ones I’d expected to be hopeless. And I hadn’t even expected them to be that bad, just hopeless in the way of the Littlefield-era Pirates that were spinning their wheels to aim to maybe get a winning season with nothing in the tank for the future.
Then I got confused about why the Angels are so bad. Their lineup is hitting fine behind Trout, they have a starter with an ERA under 1.00… turns out their BaseRuns is a decent .494 and they are underperforming it the most. Related, their bullpen has been terrible.
Roundabout way of saying, the Nationals do have the worst BaseRuns in the majors, though at .408 even that isn’t so bad. Oddly, the Nationals are one of two teams (Astros) with a worse bullpen WAR than the Angels, though their ERA is almost a run lower.
I hope tanking is over!
If you subbed Mookie Betts in for Ohtani in the basketball question, tho, I’d be 100% convinced Mookie could hold it down in the league. Dude can do anything. If you gave him a year, I bet he’d be the world’s best Jai Alai player
What’s the list of athletes with legit baseball and basketball pedigrees? Jordan of course. Kenny Lofton was the starting point guard on a Sweet Sixteen team. Dick Groat was a college basketball player of the year at Duke and played in the early NBA.
Dave DeBusschere was a good reliever in MLB and elected to the NBA HOF.
Tony Gwynn was pretty good. Not anything like he was as a baseball player but at one point he held the assist record at San Diego State.
Playing basketball built up his incredible wrist strength and wrecked his knees.
Dave Winfield started for his college team too, which made it even more amazing that he skipped the minors.
With lofton, Gwynn, debusschere, Winfield, ainge, I’m pretty sure you have a better basketball lineup than any 9 nba guys would be as a baseball lineup.
Would be a pretty small basketball team vs pro basketball players but with the three guard / two undersized power forward lineup. But if we just took them during their college days I bet that is a top ranked starting lineup at that level.
Danny Ainge, though he has the lowest bWAR of any player from Oregon.
Tony Gwynn was a standout basketball player while at SDSU.
Ron Reed.
Groat is on the short list of greatest two sport athletes. Won an MVP in MLB and was NCAA hoops player of the year. That’s a remarkable combination.
Kind of a deep cut, but we have to bring up former Reds pitcher Amir Garrett.
Cal Ripken was an all-state high school soccer player. Pretty remarkable considering he was marked from birth to play baseball.
Mark Hendrickson
1169 IP, 11.6 fWAR
114 NBA games, 381 pts, 316 reb, 63 ast, 15 blk
With their height and speed (and athleticism), Elly and Oneil would be pretty damn good basketball players.
Shame it’s too long ago to verify, but, my initial thought of best opposite field hitter of all time is Wade Boggs, peppering balls off the Green Monster.
Ohtani cannot even catch fly balls at an MLB level. Doubt his skills translate to playing basketball at a high level.
I’ve been told that BO KNOWS BASKETBALL
“It’s 20 years of all-time-great basketball, written in the style of a Taylor Sheridan power fantasy.”
OK, this is great. Do something nice for yourself today.
slight correction: the White Sox are presently 15-17, not 14-18… which puts ’em half a game outta a WC spot and 1.5 back in the division. They’ve also been playing genuinely decent baseball after a cold start & some needed call-ups, namely Schultz & Antonacci. Since that date (April 15) they’re *3rd* in both wRC+ and position player WAR… and the playoff odds given are 2.9% not 2.2%, thank you!
Ohtani could be a D and 3 player, and likely a good passer. Also, he’s not 210 pounds. He’s probably 230. He’s built. I think he could hold his own in the g league if he fully dedicated 18 months to learning the game.
I also agree with everything you said about Jordan and the majority of his fanboys who are emotionally stunted weirdos, but Jordan is better because at his peak, which was substantial, he could win regardless of what his team did. LeBron is incredible but even in his prime his game relied on teammates, which often foiled him.
Eh, I’ll contend that the teammates argument tends more in favor of James than Jordan.
Jordan’s years of great team success with the Bulls came when Scottie Pippen was also a top 10-15 overall player in the NBA and the team had a very solid contribution from a power forward (Horace Grant earlier in Jordan’s career, Dennis Rodman in later years).
The 1993-94 Bulls, without Jordan, were still a good team: 55-27 regular season record that earned the 3 seed in the Eastern Conference, lost in the 2nd round in 7 games to a Knicks team that ended up nearly winning the championship that year (the Knicks lost to the Rockets in a 7-game NBA Finals).
By contrast, look at the roster of the 2005-6 Cavaliers who made the Finals, or the rosters of the Cavs teams who won 60+ games in consecutive seasons later that decade. Without James, those are below .500 rosters. Very possibly dreadful, among the worst teams in the league rosters.
Judge gets a huge boost in his oppo splits from being a RHH who plays half his games at Yankee Stadium — he hits plenty of oppo shots on the road, but it certainly helps to have that short porch. He’s also gotten more adept at leveraging that as his career has unfolded. The difference in oppo splits between home/road for him is large.