Fernando Tatis Jr. Has a Clear Shot at Cooperstown
Fernando Tatis Jr. has agreed to the longest contract in baseball history, and one of the most lucrative — and yet looking at the jaw-dropping ZiPS projection for his career, his 14-year, $340 million deal might be underselling him. At the very least, Tatis’ contract and his production to date cast him as a generational talent, and his forecast suggests he’ll wind up ranking among history’s great shortstops. While it’s hard to believe that a player with only two partial years in the majors has a leg up on a berth in the Hall of Fame, the statistical history of players who’ve done what he’s done at such a young age suggests that it’s true: Tatis is already soaring towards Cooperstown.
Or if you prefer, stylishly shimmying there:
Hip-notized by @tatis_jr ? pic.twitter.com/25eBSeokFn
— San Diego Padres (@Padres) August 8, 2020
The skeptic in all of us may be saying, “Whoa, let’s pump the brakes on this kind of talk,” but it’s the Padres who have placed the bet on a Mookie Betts-like impact over the course of well over a decade, and looking at the comparisons and the company he’s keeping once we crunch the numbers, it’s tough to disagree. Nothing is guaranteed, least of all a player’s spot in the Hall of Fame a quarter-century from now, but the odds of him fulfilling that promise are substantial.
Regarding the Hall, consider first the baselines set by a player arriving in the majors at an early age. Repeating a study I did in relation to Ronald Acuña Jr. in 2018 (only this time catching a glitch in my accounting relating to 19th century players), I used Baseball-Reference’s Stathead to track the rates at which position players who made at least one plate appearance in their age-18 through 21 seasons reached the Hall:
| Age | 1 PA | Active | Not Yet Elig. | Hall of Fame | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | 125 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 8.1% |
| 19 | 338 | 6 | 3 | 30 | 9.1% |
| 20 | 775 | 33 | 8 | 64 | 8.7% |
| 21 | 1601 | 98 | 32 | 107 | 7.3% |
After removing the active and not-yet-eligible players from the total, we find that nearly one out of every 12 players who made at least one PA in their age-18 seasons are enshrined; the total has increased since I last ran this study thanks to the election of Ted Simmons via the 2020 Modern Baseball Era Committee ballot. Nearly one out of every 11 has made it from the age-19 group, and so on. The majority of the position players elected in the past decade debuted during this age window: Ken Griffey Jr., Tim Raines, Ivan Rodriguez, and Modern Baseball pick Alan Trammell in their age-19 seasons (though Raines didn’t get his first PA until age 20); Ron Santo and Jim Thome in their age-20 seasons; and Vladimir Guerrero, Derek Jeter, and Chipper Jones in their age-21 seasons. Meanwhile, Craig Biggio, Barry Larkin, Frank Thomas, and Larry Walker all debuted in their age-22 seasons, with Jeff Bagwell (age-23) and Edgar Martinez (age-24) the stragglers.
By raising the bar for those seasons from one PA to 100, the rates of enshrinement roughly double, and by going from one PA to 250 PA, they roughly triple:
| Age | 100 PA | Active | Not Yet Elig. | Hall of Fame | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18.8% |
| 19 | 87 | 5 | 3 | 16 | 20.3% |
| 20 | 274 | 20 | 4 | 42 | 16.8% |
| 21 | 699 | 59 | 18 | 88 | 14.1% |
| Age | 250 PA | Active | Not Yet | HOF | % |
| 18 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20.0% |
| 19 | 37 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 31.4% |
| 20 | 151 | 17 | 4 | 33 | 25.4% |
| 21 | 410 | 30 | 8 | 71 | 19.1% |
I used 250 PA as my top cutoff because that’s the bar that Tatis has cleared in his two abbreviated seasons. Even without knowing anything of his performance other than his level of major league playing time at age 20, we can estimate that he’s got about a 25% chance of enshrinement.
Ah, but that performance is something special, with numbers that jump off the page the way the ball jumps off his bat. While Tatis was limited to 84 games in 2019 due to a stress reaction in his back, and 59 last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, his total playing time is close enough to a season’s worth that we can treat it as such for the purposes of fun and games. To date, he’s played 143 games, taken 629 PA, and hit .301/.374/.582 with 39 homers, a 154 OPS+ and 7.0 bWAR (6.5 fWAR and 150 wRC+, but as I’m heading into JAWS territory, I’ll stick with B-Ref stats except where noted). First, to reiterate a point that Ben Clemens made in his initial evaluation of Tatis’ contract, just consider the company he’s keeping with that offense through age 21:
| Rk | Player | Years | PA | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mike Trout* | 2011-2013 | 1490 | .314 | .404 | .544 | 166 |
| 2 | Ted Williams+ | 1939-1940 | 1338 | .336 | .439 | .601 | 161 |
| 3 | Albert Pujols* | 2001 | 676 | .329 | .403 | .610 | 157 |
| 4 | Jimmie Foxx+ | 1925-1929 | 1302 | .342 | .436 | .579 | 157 |
| 5 | Rogers Hornsby+ | 1915-1917 | 1200 | .316 | .372 | .455 | 155 |
| 6 | Fernando Tatis Jr.* | 2019-2020 | 629 | .301 | .374 | .582 | 154 |
| 7 | Ty Cobb+ | 1905-1908 | 1836 | .324 | .362 | .440 | 153 |
| 8 | Juan Soto* | 2018-2020 | 1349 | .295 | .415 | .557 | 151 |
| 9 | Hal Trosky | 1933-1934 | 732 | .327 | .385 | .590 | 148 |
| 10 | Mel Ott+ | 1926-1930 | 2064 | .331 | .428 | .558 | 146 |
| 11 | Mickey Mantle+ | 1951-1953 | 1552 | .295 | .384 | .497 | 145 |
| 12 | Eddie Mathews+ | 1952-1953 | 1274 | .274 | .366 | .541 | 145 |
| 13 | Frank Robinson+ | 1956-1957 | 1345 | .307 | .378 | .543 | 139 |
| 14 | Ken Griffey Jr.+ | 1989-1991 | 1805 | .299 | .367 | .479 | 135 |
| 15 | Tris Speaker+ | 1907-1909 | 755 | .290 | .341 | .406 | 134 |
Mercy. Those are some of the greatest hitters in history. Ten are already in the Hall of Fame and at least two more (Trout and Pujols) will be someday, leaving Tatis, Soto, and the one clear obscurity, Trosky, a slugging first baseman who still wound up with a 130 OPS+ in a substantial career (5,750 PA) that was shortened by persistent migraines.
And now, let’s bring position and defense into the equation with a look at the top 21-and-under seasons from shortstops via bWAR:
| Rk | Player | Tm | Year | Age | G | PA | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rogers Hornsby+ | STL | 1917 | 21 | 145 | 589 | .327 | .385 | .484 | 169 | 9.9 |
| 2 | Alex Rodriguez | SEA | 1996 | 20 | 146 | 677 | .358 | .414 | .631 | 161 | 9.4 |
| 3 | Carlos Correa* | HOU | 2016 | 21 | 153 | 660 | .274 | .361 | .451 | 124 | 7.0 |
| NR | Fernando Tatis Jr.* | SDP | TOT | 21 | 143 | 699 | .301 | .374 | .582 | 153 | 7.0 |
| 4 | Arky Vaughan+ | PIT | 1933 | 21 | 152 | 655 | .314 | .388 | .478 | 146 | 6.8 |
| 5 | Donie Bush | DET | 1909 | 21 | 157 | 678 | .273 | .380 | .314 | 115 | 6.5 |
| 6 | Alex Rodriguez | SEA | 1997 | 21 | 141 | 638 | .300 | .350 | .496 | 120 | 5.7 |
| 7 | Carlos Correa* | HOU | 2015 | 20 | 99 | 432 | .279 | .345 | .512 | 135 | 4.8 |
| 8 | Cal Ripken Jr.+ | BAL | 1982 | 21 | 160 | 655 | .264 | .317 | .475 | 115 | 4.7 |
| 9T | Jim Fregosi | LAA | 1963 | 21 | 154 | 642 | .287 | .325 | .422 | 114 | 4.3 |
| John McGraw | BLN | 1893 | 20 | 127 | 597 | .321 | .454 | .413 | 130 | 4.3 | |
| 11 | Fernando Tatis Jr.* | SDP | 2019 | 20 | 84 | 372 | .317 | .379 | .590 | 154 | 4.1 |
| 12T | Francisco Lindor* | CLE | 2015 | 21 | 99 | 438 | .313 | .353 | .482 | 121 | 4.0 |
| Travis Jackson+ | NYG | 1924 | 20 | 151 | 633 | .302 | .326 | .428 | 102 | 4.0 | |
| 14 | Arky Vaughan+ | PIT | 1932 | 20 | 129 | 555 | .318 | .375 | .412 | 114 | 3.8 |
| 15 | Garry Templeton | STL | 1977 | 21 | 153 | 644 | .322 | .336 | .449 | 110 | 3.7 |
| 16 | Elvis Andrus* | TEX | 2009 | 20 | 145 | 541 | .267 | .329 | .373 | 82 | 3.6 |
| 17 | Joe Tinker+ | CHC | 1902 | 21 | 133 | 545 | .263 | .300 | .333 | 99 | 3.5 |
| 18 | Robin Yount+ | MIL | 1977 | 21 | 154 | 663 | .288 | .333 | .377 | 94 | 3.4 |
| 19 | Buddy Kerr | NYG | 1944 | 21 | 150 | 598 | .266 | .316 | .387 | 98 | 3.3 |
| 20T | Starlin Castro* | CHC | 2011 | 21 | 158 | 715 | .307 | .341 | .432 | 111 | 3.2 |
| Edgar Renteria | FLA | 1996 | 19 | 106 | 471 | .309 | .358 | .399 | 103 | 3.2 | |
| 22T | Fernando Tatis Jr.* | SDP | 2020 | 21 | 59 | 257 | .277 | .366 | .571 | 155 | 2.8 |
| Alan Trammell+ | DET | 1978 | 20 | 139 | 504 | .268 | .335 | .339 | 89 | 2.8 | |
| 24T | Mike Caruso | CHW | 1998 | 21 | 133 | 555 | .306 | .331 | .390 | 90 | 2.7 |
| Rance Mulliniks | CAL | 1977 | 21 | 78 | 303 | .269 | .329 | .365 | 93 | 2.7 | |
| Chris Speier | SFG | 1971 | 21 | 157 | 670 | .235 | .307 | .323 | 80 | 2.7 |
Even without accounting for the fact that his two seasons were significantly truncated, Tatis cracks the leaderboard twice, and with two of the shortest seasons on here; I extended down to number 25 in part to capture Mulliniks, both because his rookie season was shorter than that of Tatis and because I saw the guy play at Salt Lake City with some frequency in 1978 and ’79; Angels general manager Buzzie Bavasi didn’t trust anyone under 30 and was intent on trading away a boatload of talent and/or blocking it with over-the-hill veterans to avoid it (a story for another day lest I go off on a 3,000 word tangent).
Anyway, that’s eight seasons by Hall of Famers from among the top 25, which may not sound impressive at first, but consider that nine of the other seasons — two apiece by Correa, Lindor, Rodriguez, and Tatis plus one by Andrus — are from players who are either active or not yet eligible for Hall consideration; A-Rod will be on the 2022 ballot. McGraw is in the Hall of Fame too, but as a manager, though given what he’d done as a player (44.0 WAR through age 28 despite missing about a season’s worth of time at 24 and 25 due to malaria and typhoid fever), he was good enough to wind up there on his merits had he not stopped playing regularly upon jumping to the Giants in 1902, his age-29 season. So that’s eight out of 15 qualifying seasons from Hall of Famers, seven out of 14 if we don’t count Vaughan twice, and seven of the top 11 if we draw the line before Rance and pals. More to the point, if we quite reasonably scotch-tape Tatis’ two partial seasons together and consider only the upper echelons of that list, we find that only Hornsby, Rodriguez, Correa, Vaughan, Bush, and Ripken — three Hall of Famers plus a Hall-caliber player with the common sense that God gave a sack of doorknobs among them — are in the same ballpark.
That’s a pretty small sample of players, though, so it’s helpful to approach the matter from another angle. Instead, we’ll consider the production of all position players through their age-21 seasons. Tatis’s 7.0 WAR is merely tied with Bush for 39th, but that’s a product of playing time. Using FanGraphs WAR and limiting the group to post-1960 expansion era players, Alex Chamberlain illustrated this well on Wednesday night, shortly after news of Tatis’ extension broke:
my actual face reading the tatís contract extension news ?
to celebrate, here are the 20 hitters (since 1960) to generate 6.5 fWAR through their age-21 season
take note of the plate appearances—per PA, tatís is 3rd-best behind only trout and pujols pic.twitter.com/KqUX7BR1sx
— Alex "Oxlade" Chamberlain (@DolphHauldhagen) February 18, 2021
Tatis is in the picture despite having less than half the playing time of the majority of the players above him. Yet even before accounting for that impediment, he’s in impressive company.
Turning back to bWAR, of the 40 players with at least 7.0 through age 21, 17 are enshrined, but since Tatis barely makes that cutoff, and since several of those players aren’t yet eligible, that’s not the clearest picture. Rejiggering and expanding the list, 31 out of 61 eligible players with at least 5.0 WAR through age 21 are enshrined, just over half. But since the top nine guys, all with 13.3 WAR or greater, aren’t really that similar to Tatis given their advantages in playing time — list-topper Mel Ott had 2,064 PA by that point, nearly three times as many as our bat-flipping prodigy – it would be more accurate to say that 22 out of 52 (42%) with 5.0 to 12.5 WAR through age 21 are enshrined. That group, incidentally, averaged 7.2 WAR to that point, placing Tatis closer to the center.
Trimming the list further still, among the players from that group with 1,000 PA or fewer through age 21, we get this:
| Rk | Player | Years | G | PA | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1T | Donie Bush | 1908-1909 | 177 | 759 | 7.0 |
| Fernando Tatis Jr. | 1912-1914 | 143 | 629 | 7.0 | |
| 3 | Ray Schalk+ | 1912-1914 | 288 | 981 | 6.7 |
| 4 | Mike Tiernan | 1887-1888 | 216 | 934 | 6.5 |
| 5T | Jake Beckley+ | 1888-1889 | 194 | 849 | 6.5 |
| Tris Speaker+ | 1907-1909 | 181 | 755 | 6.3 | |
| 7 | Tom Brunansky | 1981-1982 | 138 | 586 | 6.1 |
| 8T | Whitey Lockman | 1945-1948 | 180 | 809 | 6.0 |
| Stan Musial+ | 1941-1942 | 152 | 585 | 6.0 | |
| 10 | Hal Trosky | 1933-1934 | 165 | 732 | 5.7 |
| 11T | Lew Brown | 1876-1879 | 220 | 930 | 5.5 |
| Joe Morgan+ | 1963-1965 | 175 | 781 | 5.5 | |
| 13 | King Kelly+ | 1878-1879 | 137 | 597 | 5.4 |
| 14T | Frank Snyder | 1912-1915 | 262 | 919 | 5.2 |
| Joe Torre | 1960-1962 | 195 | 691 | 5.2 | |
| Cap Anson+ | 1871-1873 | 123 | 614 | 5.2 | |
| 17 | Willie Mays+ | 1951-1952 | 155 | 668 | 5.1 |
| 18 | Ned Williamson | 1878-1879 | 143 | 599 | 5.0 |
That’s eight out of 17 players who wound up in the Hall, plus a ninth if you count Torre, who quite reasonably could have been elected as a player before he was feted as a manager. This time, we’re probably understating Tatis’ case, as he’s tied with Bush for the highest WAR of the group, which averages 5.8 WAR. We’re also talking about a lot of ancient guys including Anson, which is to say that we’re reaching back to the very dawn of major league history, but let’s leave that issue aside for the moment and try a different approach, prorating each player’s WAR to 650 PA:
| Rk | Player | Years | G | PA | WAR | WAR/650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mike Trout* | 2011-2013 | 336 | 1490 | 19.9 | 8.7 |
| 2 | Rogers Hornsby+ | 1915-1917 | 302 | 1200 | 14.4 | 7.8 |
| 3 | Fernando Tatis Jr.* | 2019-2020 | 143 | 629 | 7.0 | 7.2 |
| 4 | Carlos Correa* | 2015-2016 | 252 | 1092 | 11.8 | 7.0 |
| 5 | Jimmie Foxx+ | 1925-1929 | 364 | 1302 | 13.9 | 6.9 |
| 6 | Tom Brunansky | 1981-1982 | 138 | 586 | 6.1 | 6.8 |
| 7 | Stan Musial+ | 1941-1942 | 152 | 585 | 6.0 | 6.7 |
| 8 | Frank Robinson+ | 1956-1957 | 302 | 1345 | 13.4 | 6.5 |
| 9 | Ted Williams+ | 1939-1940 | 293 | 1338 | 13.3 | 6.5 |
| 10 | Albert Pujols* | 2001-2001 | 161 | 676 | 6.6 | 6.3 |
| 11 | Alex Rodriguez* | 1994-1997 | 352 | 1523 | 14.4 | 6.1 |
| 12 | Donie Bush | 1908-1909 | 177 | 759 | 7.0 | 6.0 |
| 13 | King Kelly+ | 1878-1879 | 137 | 597 | 5.4 | 5.9 |
| 14 | Andruw Jones | 1996-1998 | 343 | 1211 | 10.9 | 5.9 |
| 15 | Mickey Mantle+ | 1951-1953 | 365 | 1552 | 13.6 | 5.7 |
| 16 | Arky Vaughan+ | 1932-1933 | 281 | 1210 | 10.6 | 5.7 |
| 17 | Ken Griffey Jr.+ | 1989-1991 | 436 | 1805 | 15.6 | 5.6 |
| 18 | Ty Cobb+ | 1905-1908 | 439 | 1836 | 15.7 | 5.6 |
| 19 | Mel Ott+ | 1926-1930 | 539 | 2064 | 17.5 | 5.5 |
| 20 | Cap Anson+ | 1871-1873 | 123 | 614 | 5.2 | 5.5 |
| 21 | Ned Williamson | 1878-1879 | 143 | 599 | 5.0 | 5.4 |
| 22 | Tris Speaker+ | 1907-1909 | 181 | 755 | 6.3 | 5.4 |
| 23 | Johnny Bench+ | 1967-1969 | 328 | 1292 | 10.7 | 5.4 |
| 24 | Eddie Mathews+ | 1952-1953 | 302 | 1274 | 10.5 | 5.4 |
| 25 | Ronald Acuna Jr.* | 2018-2019 | 267 | 1202 | 9.9 | 5.4 |
| 26 | Al Kaline+ | 1953-1956 | 473 | 1939 | 15.7 | 5.3 |
| 27 | Vada Pinson | 1958-1960 | 335 | 1523 | 12.3 | 5.2 |
| 28 | Hal Trosky | 1933-1934 | 165 | 732 | 5.7 | 5.1 |
| 29 | Jason Heyward* | 2010-2011 | 270 | 1079 | 8.4 | 5.1 |
| 30 | Manny Machado* | 2012-2014 | 289 | 1266 | 9.7 | 5.0 |
| 31 | Jake Beckley+ | 1888-1889 | 194 | 849 | 6.5 | 5.0 |
| 32 | Willie Mays+ | 1951-1952 | 155 | 668 | 5.1 | 5.0 |
Yowzah. Of those 32 players, 18 are enshrined, six are eligible but not enshrined, and eight, including Tatis, Trout, and Correa from among the top five, are not yet eligible. It’s true that the six outsiders tended towards the lower end of the playing time spectrum to that point, with four having 759 PA or fewer; that subgroup averaged 902 PA to the Hall of Famers’ 1,235 PA through age 21. The problem comes out in the wash to some degree if we limit the group to integration era players (1947 onward), as two of the three remaining outsiders (compared to seven enshrinees) are Jones, who may yet be elected, and Pinson, both of whom had over 1,200 PA, leaving Brunansky — another ex-Angel whom I saw at Salt Lake City before he was traded away by Bavasi — as the cautionary tale.
So, at the very least 18 of the top 24 eligible players in prorated WAR through age 21 have made the Hall of Fame. If we consider Pujols and Trout as automatic given their current JAWS standings (second among first basemen in the case of the former, fifth among center fielders in that of the latter), A-Rod as a definite no (which may be overstating the case, because never is a long time) due to his PED usage, and Heyward as a no because of his fade to league average performance over the past five seasons (8.6 WAR), that would be 20 of 28 (71%), with the jury still out on Acuña, Correa, and Machado as well as Tatis. If we instead consider only the post-integration players, that’s seven out of 10 plus Trout and Pujols on one side, and A-Rod and Heyward on the other, or nine out of 14 (64%). On this basis, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that about two-thirds of the players who have done what Tatis has done through age 21 wind up enshrined.
As noted, Tatis’ ZiPS projection separately makes the case for the player being on the path to Cooperstown. Even without reaching 600 PA in any season, and with subpar (but hardly Jeter-esque) defense, he forecasts to produce a string of half a dozen six-win seasons from ages 24 to 29, bookended by some five-win ones. If he were to live up to that projection, then through his age-35 season he’d have 73.9 career WAR, 42.5 peak WAR, and 58.2 JAWS, the last of which would place him 10th all-time among shortstops, between Ozzie Smith and Trammell. By then it’s entirely possible that some of his contemporaries — Lindor, Correa, Corey Seager, Trevor Story — will be in the picture as well, and that Tatis will still have something left in the tank to climb even higher. I hope we get to see that.
On the face of it, evaluating the Hall of Fame prospects of a player who’s not going to wind up on the dais for 20 or 25 years is a ridiculous enterprise. I can’t say that I like doing the math on how old I’ll be if and when this comes to pass; this is looking down the barrel of my own mortality, a heavy thought for any gray mid-February day, let alone one in the midst of a pandemic. The fun of it is that we actually get to watch and enjoy Tatis, as exciting a player as the game currently has, and one with an incredibly bright future ahead of him. Let’s marvel at his trajectory as he soars.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
I’m sorry, but the hyperbole is now out of control.
He has 143 games under his belt, 59 of which were largely against teams in their own division, under playing conditions that have literally never existed before in baseball history.
He also posted a .200/.300/.400 triple slash over his last 100 PA and gave away the MVP award. I’m not too concerned about those 100 PA… it’s a small sample… but it’s 15% of his career.
He’s never had to sustain over 162 games. He’s never had to compete through the dog days of summer after starting spring training in February. And so forth and so on.
I think he is a true generational talent, and I think the odds are high that he is one of the best for a long time if he stays healthy. But the conditions under which he has done this are unprecedented in baseball history, and comparing him to other age 21 phenoms is a small enough sample size to begin with. Let’s pump the breaks if only for the fact that I don’t want his 130 or 140 wRC+ season someday to feel like a massive disappointment.
Sorry to be a dampener but this has been building inside me for the last 24 hours…
The article doesn’t say he’s going to be one of the few best players ever, just that his numbers so far put him among elite company and I find that interesting. Also, is there any evidence that hitters do worse over a full season than they do for 3 month periods? I can see it for pitchers. Being able to go more innings is a challenge but for position players? I don’t think a “long season” would make a difference. A 21 year old with a career 154 WRC+ and 7+ WAR is absolutely incredible and should be celebrated IMO.
Celebrated? Absolutely.
Among elite company? Absolutely?
But come on, the post builds towards a suggestion that 2/3 of his “peers” by age are Hall of Famers. On an analytics website, there’s a whole lot of reason to note what a small sample size he’s in and the unique playing conditions of a giant chunk of his first 150 games. He’s basically had a full rookie season, spread over two years, one of which was under pandemic playing conditions where we’re not sure how predictive it is.
I guess I thought Fangraphs was above hyperbole like this. I expect it from plenty of other places, but not here. There was a time when Fangraphs lead story today would have been “Hold on Internet, Tatis is AMAZING and what he’s done this far is rarified, but there’s a whole lot of data points to consider before we crown him.” There was a time when Fangraphs would have been the break-pumper instead of adding more helium. I guess I miss those days, not because I’m trying to be negative, but because the pursuit of deeper analytics is all about break-pumping when required.
I’m not criticizing Tatis; I’m stating an opinion.
How is this hyperbole? He’s started on the path to the HoF. Might not make, but he’s got a solid start towards.
“Clear shot at Cooperstown”
“Soaring towards Cooperstown”
Maybe you and I have different opinions on what those words mean, and that’s fine. I’m fine calling it hyperbole.
The article notes:
Even without knowing anything of his performance other than his level of major league playing time at age 20, we can estimate that he’s got about a 25% chance of enshrinement.
Over 15,000 players have worn a major league uniform. We’re looking at a 25% HOF rate on 150 batters who’ve started their career early and using that sample size on an analytics based website to “estimate that he’s got about a 25% chance of enshrinement”?
How is that wrong? Teams generally don’t give that much playing time to a player that young unless they’re already incredibly good or expected to be incredibly good.
Also, the small sample size argument is more valid when we can actually achieve a sufficiently large sample. Whether it’s UZR, BABIP, etc., we know to be wary of small sample sizes because we already have the information of what happens when the sample size gets larger, and it typically takes a couple years at most to know the true level. When it comes to 20-year olds making it to Cooperstown, we don’t know what’s a sufficiently large sample and we may never will. We currently have a sample from over 100 years of baseball, so we’re all going to be long dead before we find out the true probability that a 20-year old with 250 career plate appearances will make the HoF.
I’d also like to point out that since Jay said “we can estimate,” he’s already showing that the 25% isn’t gospel, but it’s the information we currently have. Besides, a 75% chance of not being a Hall of Famer just based on playing time is a lot! We all know that he could suffer a career-ending injury or might experience a steeper talent decline than expected. Does that need to be pointed out literally every time we discuss a generational talent, or can we admit that it’s okay for it to be implied?
Frankly, I think you’re getting way too bent out of shape over what was meant to be a fun thought exercise.
Not bent out of shape at all. Just have a different opinion than you.
You’ve commented 8 times out of (after I post) 36 total comments, all basically saying the exact same message, and have tallied a net of 0 likes.
I rest my case.
Your comments imply that my only reasons for commenting would be to vent or to search for “likes.” I find no value in either on the Internet, though like most humans I slip and vent from time to time and regret it.
I post to express my opinions, usually to challenge my own assumptions and thoughts (which inevitably makes them better) and/or to express a point of view that others may not have considered.
Its more like a feeling
There’s no inherent advantage or disadvantage to the short season, it’s just that statistically you’re going to have a higher likelihood that he performs above or below his “true” talent. So we can’t say the short season definitely helped him, but the small sample made it more likely that he’d have a deviation from his true talent, whatever it is. For all we know, he would have done better if he had a couple more months to play. Or maybe he would have kept fading down the stretch. We don’t get to know.
I know this is going to sound insane, but hear me out. How about we pump the brakes on enshrining a player in the Hall of Fame until they have at least 600 major league plate appearances under their belt.
Crazy talk, I know.
*Checks player page*
629 PA.
All aboard the hype train!
I know this is going to sound insane, but hear me out. Have you considered reading the article and not just the headline and jumping to the comments section?
“On the face of it, evaluating the Hall of Fame prospects of a player who’s not going to wind up on the dais for 20 or 25 years is a ridiculous enterprise.”
He’s The Baseball Jesus, sent to save baseball and humankind.
I actually think that Jay was very reserved here.
It is an interesting question. Can we take what we know about a player’s performance this early in their career (and life) to see where Tatis fits and whether those others made it to the Hall (or are on that trajectory)? I think Jay looked at this from a variety of perspectives and then presented the results in that context.
For those telling Jay to “pump the brakes”, I don’t think he was going fast at all. And if Jay Jaffe is going to examine the signing of Tatis, he has to look at it through the lens of the Hall.
Models love middle infielders who mash young. But they still love Tatis even when compared to players at all positions. That to me is where Tatis stands out. I think the middle infield argument isn’t as important as it once was with positioning, and technology, but even when you compare him to a list of all time great at any position, he isn’t out of place.
It also sets the table for future articles in a few years down the road to come to see where he’s at. Is he still doing good? Has he fallen off?
“He’s doing some rare things given what we’ve seen so far.”
Great stuff, Jay. I’m probably in the extreme minority to be excited to hear you wax poetic about guys you saw in the late 70’s at Derks Field in Salt Lake. The Gulls were a little before my time, but the Trappers and the Buzz/Bees were my baseball childhood.
Well, duh. Surprised folks are upset by this. He’s had a damn good start.
So you think a 600 PA “damn good start” has someone “soaring towards Cooperstown”?
I dont think you understand the significance of his accomplishments relative to his age. Just the ability to get 600 ABs at such a young age in the minors is an incredible sign of talent and success. If he were 24 and doing this the projections and discussion would be completely different. So you can argue “small sample size” but it ignores for the highly selective nature of what it takes just to be included in that sample.
I definitely understand the significance of his accomplishments at his age. It’s one of the most interesting starts to a career in baseball history at ANY age much less his precocious young age. It’s historic and should be appreciated.
There’s a Grand Canyon between that acknowledgement and appreciation, and knowing how hard it is to be that good for the… what… 5000 minimum PA to get into Cooperstown at that level? Maybe that’s the question… over how many PA would Tatis have to deliver even 90-95% of his performance thus far to get to Cooperstown ? If he did it for 3000 PA and then fell off, he’s not a HOFer.
Moreover, this is an analytics website that seems to be getting lazier with its analyses especially when numbers are presented without context. Based on performance so far, Jay Jaffe outright suggests a 25% chance of enshrinement. What about players with 2000 PA by age 22 or 23? Are their historical rates significantly different? What statistically tells us that the first 600 PA are so determinative as to give someone a 25% chance of enshrinement?
I’m young but you all are gonna make me sound like an old man shouting at the kids to get off his lawn when I say that this is exactly the kind of lazy, context-lacking analysis and narrative that Fangraphs used to pick apart and destroy.
Context-lacking? The context of the article is the Padres just signed a player who’s only played through age 21 with 4 years of control left to a 14 year contract for one of the largest amounts in MLB history.
You don’t seem to have processed that happened.
I think you’re not appreciating the difference between a projection and a prediction. Predictions are what gamblers and pundits do. This is simply taking the best available information and seeing where that leads. Jay isn’t predicting he is going to Cooperstown, he is rightfully saying that this path, were he to continue it, leads to Cooperstown, and that it is a path that a vanishingly few number of players have taken. It is a statement of fact to say he is soaring towards Cooperstown. It is a description of a tangent, not a prediction of an arc.
This A-Rod description is worth a Pulitzer alone: “… a Hall-caliber player with the common sense that God gave a sack of doorknobs…”
Great work as always, Jay!
Any article referencing young A-Rod make me sad. A player you could argue was one of or the most talented player ever, and he goes off and does steroids. *sigh*
Not to be the bearer of bad news, but there is reason to believe he was doing them in high school as well. Not saying he isn’t still a generational talent, or belonging of the hall, but just, ya know.
I see it was written about, with Jose Conseco as a main source? Not saying he didn’t do it, and a lot of times when there is smoke there is potentially fire… but steroids don’t make you more talented either way. It’s kind of the route it took Barry Bonds, more power/potentially less injuries but less speed and a move to 3B instead of being a SS (which is a move that should never have happened anyway as he was still a much better defender then Jeter – but that’s irrelevant).
It definitely doesn’t change the talent argument in the least though.
I, for one, would love to read more about your fandom of Rance Mulliniks and your distaste of Buzzie Bavasi.
Yesterday, reading the Tony Fernandez article, I thought about Mulliniks for the first time in many, many years. After twisting in the wind in the Angels and Royals orgs, he landed in Toronto and became the lefty part of a platoon with Garth Iorg, and had a Daniel Murphy type renaissance at the plate, eventually becoming the Jays’ full-time DH for a few years later in his career (quite a transition from his origins as a David Fletcher type shortstop/utility guy.)
& he could tie in another young Angel mentioned above- Tom Brunansky. He was one of Bill James initial “old players skills” guys..but, was darn good in his 20’s. Of course, the Angels dumped him for a reliever & a utility IF after 33 PA’s as a 20 year old.
He also has a clear shot at 100 RBIs for his career, my inside man tells me he’ll get to that vaunted total in April.
I know there is time and space for a turnaround, but might it be close to that time to perhaps think about maybe calling Correa a possible cautionary tale, maybe?
Was trying to say something along those lines. I do remember when Correa had a higher WAR projection over the next 5 years or so than Trout moving forward a few years back. Don’t think his combined has even equaled Trouts worst season since.
I’d give it at least a 50% chance that all 3 of Tatis, Soto, and Acuña will be HOFers. Don’t know if we’ve seen this level of such young talent in baseball history. (The 12 HOFs plus Tatis and Soto chart say the most imo)
That implies each has an 80% probability on their own. That’s aggressive.
Soto, IMHO, has the best shot. He is by far the best hitter of the 3 and doesnt play a difficult/taxing position where the probability of injury/wear and tear is more likely.
I thought Tatis was overrated after 2019, but he might be underrated now given the steps forward that he took last year – fewer Ks, more BBs, and smacking the absolute tar out of the ball. He essentially repeated his 2019 stat line but did it without the benefit of a .410 BABIP.
He is not underrated. Many publications are suggesting he’s the best player in baseball (no, still Trout, duh). He has way too much juice in the baseball and overall sports media to be overrated. He is extremely good and nobody is really saying otherwise.
It seems like we’re all very quick to hand waive away his back problems when projecting his next 14 years.
He’s got the talent/age/production to make the HOF for sure, but how many of the HOF cohort analyzed here had back problems at age 20? I’m probably guilty of projecting my experience onto Tatis, but back issues are the sort of thing that recur, and tend not to get better with age.
You’re making too much sense for this thread.
His injuries thus far seem to be the nagging type rather than freak occurrences. I think if Tatis does not have an amazing career, injuries are far and away the most likely reason for why.
ZIPS projects him to basically play 80% of a season every year. That’s a lot of “nagging injuries.” Has a player ever had nagging injuries for many seasons in a row and not seen their performance affected or their body break down? I’ve seen and heard multiple tajes of “he’s going to put up that much WAR but in only 500 PA. I’d submit that the more seasons of 400-500 PA, the less likely he gets enough career AB to be considered for the Hall.
I don’t want that to happen. I want him to be great. But no one, No One, has a clear shot to Cooperstown after 600 PA no matter how good those PA were.
Try Mickey Mantle. He played basically his whole career with knee problems.
I think if Tatis is hampered by injuries, he’d still be a stud player during the stretches that he’s able to play (like Tulo was). The Padres probably have insurance to offset the sting of any career-ending type injury, though they’re probably paying a nice sum given Tatis’ injury record so far.
More than likely. Hopefully for Tatis Tulo doesn’t become a good comp.
As a Jays fan having a front row seat for the End of Tulo was sad.
I am thinking more of Hanley Ramirez comparison. Super good first 6 or so years then starts to fade.
“So you’re telling me there’s a chance?” Good article. Soto, Acuna, Tatis. Pretty amazing all three have started the way they have.
Great work, places Tatis’ early performance in historical terms, and allows us to appreciate his and others’ initial excellence. I think we often fail to grasp how good the great ones are until it’s deep into their career.
OK, I get I’m the only one who clicked on him, but the Hal Trosky link goes to the reliever who got into 2 games in 1958. His father, surefire future HOFer, Hal Trosky Sr is missing his well deserved time back in the sun!
Just to be clear, this is an article about how good Mike Trout is, correct?
At 29 Trout has already ascended and joined the legends. Rather than being the focus of articles, he just happens to show up when you want to look at what other players are doing as the champ unless it involves the words “World Series” or “postseason”.
Unrelated, but cray cray that we have THREE active players on that best-ever-under-21 list right now!
I certainly wouldn’t count him out, but it’s clear that on every statistical measure he’s among the lowest if not the lowest in playing time. Much of that isn’t his fault, of course, but it builds in uncertainty. When you include players with so little playing time, you’re asking for more statistical extremes to appear.
For me the interesting thing would be looking at /talking through the scenarios where either the career or the contract are a disappointment. Like who are comparable players that debuted very young, were very good and then went sideways. I saw Butch Wygenar on one of those tweets… Heyward etc
> More to the point, if we quite reasonably scotch-tape Tatis’ two partial seasons together and consider only the upper echelons of that list
Scotch-taping a pandemic-shortened season is quite reasonable,
an injury-shortened one much less so.
Keep in mind this is an article prompted by the Padres saying we want to give Tatis one of the biggest contracts in MLB history and lock him up for the best years if not the rest of his career.
The contract is a serious outlier and the first (and maybe only) of its kind. Questions that are answered include: Why would they be doing that? What are some of the things they could be seeing?
I really hope this contract works out as one of the best in history and Tatis retires as a Padre. I also hope the Nats make a similar deal with Soto and he retires a good deal for my Nats.
Age is everything for a position player. That’s a tidy general rule. Obviously there are lots of exceptions, particularly with catchers and shortstops who sometimes get called up for defense stopgap duty in emergencies.
OPS+ between 18-21 above Frank Robinson, Ken Griffey Jr, and Mickey Mantle…
Color me amazed