Thursday February 19, 2004
 

IS A WALK AS GOOD AS A HIT?

DISCUSSION QUESTION OF THE WEEK

MADDUX TO THE CUBS

AMERICAN IDOL THOUGHTS

SABRmetricians vs. Traditionalists

In the last year, really since the release of Michael Lewis’ book Moneyball, this debate has picked up drastically. Is the Billy Beane statistics-based approach the ‘right’ way to develop an organization? Or, is scouting, player development and a ‘toolsy’ approach the ‘right’ way for an organization to go? Or is the Yankees/Red Sox approach of spend, spend and then spend some more the ‘right’ means to attaining the same goals?

The debate seems to center around whether the new-breed SABRmetricians or the old-school Traditionalists way of thinking is better. Yesterday, there was quite the altercation between these two differing opinions.

Bill Plaschke, a baseball writer from the LA Times wrote an article called “With Luck, the Dodgers Won’t Crash.”. In it, he used terminology calling new Dodgers GM Paul DePodesta a “computer geek”, in need a Clairisol. To summarize his story, he is disappointed in the decision to select DePodesta as the Dodgers GM. Why? Because he doesn’t think that the GM of the Dodgers should be an “entry-level position.” Basically, he is saying that the 31-year old Harvard grad, who has been Billy Beane’s right-hand man in Oakland the last four seasons in Oakland, is too young to be a team’s General Manager. (Note - he’s two years older than Red Sox GM Theo Epstein!)

Just a couple of thoughts on Bill Plaschke and his article.

·         Plaschke’s job is to write articles that will bring attention to the LA Times.

·         His role is similar to that of the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Patrick Reusse or Dan Barriero. (OK, as I’m writing this, I just read that Dan Barriero is leaving the Trib after 17 years! “Part of this has to do with philosophical differences with newspaper management.” Hmmm… Should be interesting to read more on this!)

·          Many casual baseball fans probably have never heard of Paul DePodesta, and Plaschke knows that. So, he writes an article that accomplishes two things.

·         It creates controversy for the Dodgers, and

·         It creates discussion about the Dodgers just before the team hits Spring Training.

·         I also believe that much of the article was written with some sarcasm.

A few more thoughts about Aaron Gleeman’s response to the above article.

·         First, I have to say that this is one of the best, most interesting, captivating articles I have read in awhile. Aaron always writes well, and in great detail, using many statistics to back his points.

·         I found his historical look at how Branch Rickey and Allan Roth used statistical analysis in their decision-making 50 years ago fascinating.

·         I agree with his thoughts on Kirk Gibson actually being the kind of player that DePodesta and Beane would love to have on their team.

·         Aaron researched previous Plaschke articles and found one where Plaschke wrote, “Last season, one study showed that Bonds reached base 1.1 times per plate appearance.” As Aaron did, I have to wonder how that is even possible!? See what happens when a ‘traditionalist’ tries to look at statistics?!

·         Frequently, SABRmetricians are accused of being arrogant. This is because many times, in their writing and analysis, they come across as superior, as if their way of thinking is the only intelligent way to think about baseball. That anyone who dares think anything else is dumb! I think that it is very possible to read this posting and think that it comes across as very arrogant.

·         Now let me say this, and I think it is important to distinguish. The writing is what comes across as arrogant. I have e-mailed with Aaron on numerous occasions and he really is not arrogant. I will say that he does firmly believe in the statistics though, and he writes and explains them well.

·         Finally, for the most part, I completely agree with Aaron on his assessment of Mr. Plaschke’s article!

In Aaron’s posting, he gave some great quotes from Branch Rickey, from an article in LIFE Magazine from 1954, where he discussed some of his ideas on baseball and player evaluation. Aaron summarized Rickey’s thoughts writing:

1) Batting average is overrated and walks and on-base percentage are important.
2) RBIs are a misleading statistic, dependent on several other factors beyond a player's control.
3) Errors are a useless stat and something that judges a player's range in the field is far more valuable.

I first have to say that I completely agree with all three of these points. Batting average only tells part of the story of what a player does and on-base percentage should be considered equally or more important. RBIs are dependent upon a number of other factors aside from their hitting. Defensive errors or fielding percentage can definitely be overused and overrated. There is just one question that I feel compelled to ask all of the SABRmetricians around the world, so please bear with me.

ONE QUESTION FOR SABRMETRICIANS:

A Walk is as Good as a Hit?

I will start out with one of the Branch Rickey quotes that Aaron posted yesterday.

As a statistic, RBIs were not only misleading but dishonest. They depended on managerial control, a hitter's position in the batting order, park dimensions and the success of his teammates in getting on base ahead of him. That left two measurable factors - on base average and power - by which to gauge the over-all offensive worth of an individual..

To repeat myself, I agree that RBIs are overrated. They are dependent upon the factors that Mr. Rickey mentions above and probably more. But, lets take a closer look at the stat-of-all stats to SABRmetricians for a minute. The Walk.

Now, I hope I haven’t lost all of the stat-heads out there. If I haven’t, bear with me, please.

In any plate appearance, what happens? The pitcher takes the ball, gets the signal from the catcher, winds up, and throws the pitch. If it is not a strike, the umpire calls it a ball (usually??). That process is repeated until the batter either 1.) puts the ball in play, 2.) strikes out, 3.) gets hit, or 4.) walks, right? So, let’s just look at some of the factors that go into a batter taking a walk, including, but not limited to:

1.)     The pitcher’s ability to throw strikes.

·         If the pitcher throws strikes, the batter has to swing eventually, meaning that they will not walk. (If control pitchers like Brad Radke, Rick Reed or Eric Milton are pitching, walks will be reduced, even for the league’s leading walker. If Rick Ankiel is pitching, there is a chance that even Torii Hunter and Jacque Jones could walk!)

2.)     The Catcher’s Calling of the Game

·         Does the catcher call a lot of off-speed pitches?

·         Does the catcher set up out of the strike zone?

·         Is the catcher intimidated by the hitter’s stats?

3.)     The umpire calling strikes or balls.

·         Although MLB is trying to have the same strike zone for every umpire (Questec), that is not always the case. Strike zones vary from time to time. If an umpire calls a lot of strikes and has a big strike zone, it is harder to walk.

4.)     The batters around the hitter in the lineup.

·         If Ivan Rodriguez came up last season with Juan Pierre on first base, the pitcher is going to be paying a lot of attention to Pierre. This could mean that a goal is for the pitcher to get ahead in the count. It could mean that the pitcher will nibble, increasing the likelihood of a walk.

·         Using the 2003 Marlins again, if Luis Castillo is batting and Ivan Rodriguez is on deck, the pitcher is going to throw strikes to Castillo because he won’t want to put a runner on base with Pudge coming up.

5.)     Managerial Decisions

·         Intentional Walks go into the On-Base Percentage. The hitter has nothing to do with that.

·         Pitch outs.

·         Pitching changes.

6.)     Other

·         I don’t know what these might be, but I don’t want to limit it to just the ideas that I have mentioned above. I am sure there are other factors that could play a part whether a batter walks.

EXAMPLES

Briefly, let’s just look at a few players as examples of what the stats show, and what they maybe don’t show.

Here are two players that SABRmetricians really like. If you were to just look at the batting averages of Adam Dunn and Doug Mientkiewicz, you would think that Dunn had a terrible season. (and I wouldn’t argue with you!)

These number show that Adam Dunn walks a lot, but his home run power is impressive! My opinion is that Adam Dunn is too patient. His 4.33 pitches per plate appearance is a lot, but because of it, I think that he finds himself far behind in the count most of the time. Hence, the remarkable number of strikeouts (despite missing 60 games!). Dunn almost always takes the first two pitches. I think that he needs to take a hack at the first pitch once in awhile and see how far he can hit it. Pitchers have learned that he just won’t swing early in the count, so they can get ahead and then get Dunn to strike out.

Doug Mientkiewicz, on the other hand, seems to always have quality at bats. He takes a lot of pitches, but he seems in control and puts the ball in play. He doesn’t just take pitches to take pitches. If he gets a good pitch, he swings and drives the ball. His SLG% is lower than Dunn’s because he hits doubles instead of home runs. If I’m a GM, I like the Mientkiewicz-like player over the Dunn-like player (when age is not considered, of course!).

The next group of players are guys that are frequently bashed by Stat-heads because of their refusal to take walks. Just take a look at the numbers of each. They both hit over .300, they both have low walks, but still get on base at least one time every three at bats. And both get a lot of extra-base hits. Neither needs to see a lot of pitches to produce these numbers either. Even Billy Beane said, after trading for non-walker Jose Guillen at last season’s trade deadline, that on-base percentage is important, not walking. People get on base in different ways.

Would Garrett Anderson be a better hitter if he took four pitches per plate appearance? How about Jacque Jones? I don’t think so (I do think that his numbers would be better if he didn’t have to hit against left-handed pitching!).

I wanted to include these two hitters because they are the elite. They are players who take pitches, get walked, have quality plate appearances and hit for power. They are a stat-head’s or a traditionalist’s dream. I wanted to see these player’s numbers on the same page as the others, just for comparison’s sake. Of Bonds’ walks, 61 were intentional. Of Pujols’ walks, just 12 were intentional. I also wanted to show how I agree with people who say that RBI are very misleading. Any time Bonds came up with runners in scoring position, he was walked.

Then, I just wanted to be a jerk and look at the opposite side of the elite. The Dodgers double-play combination is pretty unimpressive offensively. Stat-heads will not find anything good in these numbers, and to be honest, most traditionalists won’t either! Good thing they are both great defensively!

SUMMARY

I realize that my thinking differs from many other baseball bloggers that you read. I do not consider myself a stat-head even though I love statistics and love thinking deeply about such things. My belief is that there needs to be a middle point between tools and stats. But I don’t believe that there is just one philosophy that can be successful. Look at individual players. They have different approaches at the plate, yet they can all be successful.

I remember when I was younger and you were taught to talk and cheer for your teammates. Frequently, someone would yell out, “Hey Man, A walk is as good as a hit!” At the time, it seemed to make a lot of sense to me, especially if the batter couldn’t hit at all!

However, the more I think about that sentence, I don’t agree with it at all. I happen to believe that if there are runners on 2^nd and 3^rd bases, that a 2-run single is better than a walk! Granted, I don’t want to see a hitter swing at a terrible pitch to make that happen, but if the pitch is there to hit, hit it!

Am I wrong here? Am I an anti-stat-head for thinking that, although a walk is better than an out, a walk is not always as good as a hit! I need some help from the readers and other baseball writers on this one.

If you have any thoughts on this, please e-mail me. I’d love to hear your thoughts
 

LAST CHANCE

Be sure to e-mail me and participate in this week’s Discussion Question. I have received a number of great responses to the question. However, today is the last day that. Please e-mail me by tonight to have your thoughts on the question included in tomorrow’s posting… Thanks! Here it is:

DISCUSSION QUESTION OF THE WEEK (reprinted from Monday’s posting)

Clearly baseball’s current economic situation leaves much to be desired. So this week’s Discussion Question is devoted to it. It really is more than one question, so I will leave it up to you to answer as you’d like. What is the main problem with baseball’s economic situation? If you were commissioner, what would your plan be to remedy the economic inequities in baseball? I realize this is a big question, but I think it is an important question.

Here is how the Discussion Question process works again.

1.)     I post a question on Monday.

2.)     The readers read the question and consider their thoughts on a possible answer.

3.)     The readers e-mail me with their response to the question.

4.)     On Friday, I will post any responses to the question that I receive.

I hope that many of you will take a few minutes out of your busy schedule and send me a message with your response. Who knows? Maybe the right people will be led to this site. Maybe someone in the commissioner’s office or someone with some connections will read it and one of our ideas will lead to a good resolution the next time an agreement needs to be worked out.

For those unfamiliar with these questions, be sure to check back at these previous Discussions:

Who Would You Want to Talk To? - Which ball players would you ask questions to?

All-Time Best Lineups - Who would you pick to play on your team?

Your Thoughts on the Twins Chances - Lots of you were ready to give up on the Twins!!

Is Terry Ryan “The Man” or “The Goat” - Thoughts on Terry Ryan’s moves.

What is your Favorite Sport - Baseball? Football? Basketball? Other? Why?

Twins Bobbleheads/Your Favorite Players - Who you thought would be the 2004 Twins players on bobbleheads, and who your favorite players have been.

(Note - in case you were wondering, the Twins have announced their 2004 bobbleheads. They will be:

June 6 - Shannon Stewart

July 9 - Al Newman

August 21 - Paul Molitor

September 19 - Walter Johnson - (part of an 80^th anniversary of the Washington Senators championship weekend)

So, please, send me an e-mail and let’s have a great posting for Friday! Thanks!
 

MADDUX GOES BACK TO THE CUBS

Greg Maddux agreed to a 3 year, $24 million contract to return to the Chicago Cubs. I believe that he and his agent, Scott Boras, used the Yankees perfectly to get Maddux the third year and $8-10 million more.

Maddux spent his first seven big league seasons with the Cubs before heading to the Braves in 1993. Heading back to Chi-Town, Maddux should fit in as their 3^rd or 4^th starter behind Mark Prior, Kerry Wood and probably Carlos Zambrano. He will provide a different look to opposing hitters than any of the above do.

He comes to the Cubs with a record 16 straight 15 win seasons. He needs just 11 wins to get his 300^th career win. Many people are down on Greg Maddux because in 2003, he was 16-11 with a 3.96 ERA. That ERA is higher than his ERA has been since 1987 when he was 6-14 for the Cubs! If you check out The Baseball Savant site today though, you will see that really Maddux had just six bad starts last year. In those six starts, he pitched just 24 innings. Without those starts, Maddux would have been 16-5 with a 2.60 ERA and a 0.98 WHIP in 30 starts. I realize you can’t just make those six starts disappear, but that doesn’t sound like a pitcher who is done to me!

Greg Maddux will turn 38 years old on April 14. Normally I would be a little nervous to sign a pitcher of that age to a three year contract, but I have to be honest, I don’t think it is a big risk. Let’s be honest, Greg Maddux is a 6 inning pitcher. He has been completely babied in Atlanta for years already.  He has not thrown a lot of pitches the last few years. Also, although he occasionally touches 90 mph on the radar gun, Maddux is all about control and movement, so his arm should not be a problem at all.

Finally, what a great mentor to bring in for the younger pitchers. You have to figure that this will be Maddux’s last contract, so it will be a good opportunity for him to really help out Prior, Wood, Zambrano and Clement. I realize that they have all been successful in their own right, but a little lesson from The Professor from time to time can only help. It could be something mental, or something to notice in hitters, or an approach at the plate, or maybe a fielding lesson from the 13 time Gold Glove winner.

In summary, I think this is a great signing for the Cubs. I’m sure you will hear and read both sides of this argument in coming days. I just see very little risk and so much good can come from it. Check back to The Baseball Savant site to see his thoughts on how this signing affects the NL Central race.

Any thoughts on the Maddux signing? E-mail me.
 

AMERICAN IDOL THOUGHTS

From my American Idol Thoughts yesterday:

The two that I would vote for are Kara Master and Matthew Rogers.

The two that will probably advance are Camile Velasco and Matthew Rogers.

From last night’s American Idol Results Show:

The two the will advance to the Final 12 are Camile Velasco and Matthew Rogers.

It feels so good to be right! Ha! Hopefully next week will be a better showing by the performers.

Any thoughts? E-mail me.
 

Well, that is it for today. Remember to e-mail me with your response to the Discussion Question. Also, if you have any questions, comments or suggestions for me, please speak your mind and let me know. I hope you have a great day!

Back to Archives           Home