Bases on Balls

Sky Andrechek, here, writes about the statistical revolution in baseball and how it is not really affecting the on-field play. As such, he opines, fans who would like to ignore sabermetrics can do so, even with their eyes open. 

One of the things he writes is that walks have not gone up since the publication of Moneyball in 2003. Which doesn't seem like a proof to me.

Sabermetrics attempt to find objective truth in baseball. The traditional view was that batters who "luckily" walked should not be rewarded for the pitcher's inability to throw strikes. Of course, a base on balls is not actually a construction of the pitcher. But on the other hand, it is not entirely a construction of the batter.

Andrechek (and others) have noted that walks have not gone up in the last several years. I'm not sure why you'd expect them to have done so. True, batters are now more aware of the value of the walk; organizations are telling them of it. But pitchers are now aware of the danger of the walk, and, I'm sure, are more hesitant about issuing free passes to those who'd like them.

With one group trying to increase walks and one trying to decrease them, one can hardly express surprise when the numbers don't change.

Mystifying

The Mets, as you no doubt know, traded reliever Brian Stokes to the Angels for outfielder Gary Matthews, Jr. The move was clearly in part due to the fact that Carlos Beltran, of late knee surgery, is expected to be out for around a month at the beginning of the season.

Gary Matthews is not a very good ballplayer at the Major League level. In about half a season's work last year, he had 4 home runs, a .250 batting average and OPS+d 83. In 2008, he had 8 home runs, a .242 average and a 77 OPS+.

Sabermetrics are a hot topic in baseball today, but I think it's pretty clear that all the complicated formulas (or at least most of them) have some use. Perfection may not exist*, but I think that at the very least they provide insight into baseball.

* For example, many point out that while on-base abilities and slugging abilities are not equally valuable, they are counted equally in OPS.

Fangraphs.com assigns a value to every baseball player, based on offense, defense, baserunning and defensive position. In 2009, according to their calculations Matthews was worth negative 3.8 million dollars. In 2008, negative 3.6. And he's not at an age where improvement can be expected - he's 35 years old!

Stokes, on the other hand, was (according to Fangraphs) worth 0.6 million dollars in 2008 and negative 1.0 million last year. His ERA+ were 120 and 104. At 30, he's also significantly younger than Matthews, and as such, less likely to decline in 2010.

It's hard to believe that the Mets could not acquire a backup outfielder without giving up a decent bullpen arm.

Remember, they have Angel Pagan, who should be able to play the bulk of the time until Beltran gets back. So what the Mets seemingly acquired is a backup outfielder for a month. Fernando Martinez could probably perform those duties. Heck, for a couple of games, the Mets could put Nick Evans in left and Bay in center, forfeiting nothing out of the bullpen.

Or, even further out of the box, perhaps David Wright could man center field for a spell. (There were rumors about a potential move to the outfield when Alex Rodriguez declared free agency in 2007.)

One of the few redeeming qualities about the 2009 New York Mets was its quite decent bullpen. Messing with it more than is necessary seems questionable.

"Lots of Passed Balls"

As Casey Stengel said, "If you don't have a catcher, you'll have lots of passed balls."

Bengie Molina, who nearly everyone thought the Mets were going for, is now off the market, having been re-signed by the San Francisco Giants.

As things stand, the Mets starting catcher is probably Omir Santos. Which is terrible. Or is it?

Last year, Bengie Molina threw out 23% of would-be base stealers. Santos threw out 30%. Molina OPS+d 86; Santos 82. Molina obviously has much more of track record, but Santos is at a much more favorable place, age-wise.

When you consider that Molina would have cost the Mets more (probably much more) than 4 million dollars more than Santos, I don't think it's a bad choice.

Particularly if they put that money into the pitching staff.

Because with bad hurlers, you get a lot of wild pitches.

On Mark McGwire

You may be sick of reading about Mark McGwire's confession about steroids. And I'm not writing about that (not now, anyway).

I want to talk for a moment about his non-confession in 2005 in front of a Congressional Committee. Mark famously said "I'm not here to talk about the past," for which he has been roundly bashed.

Obviously, Mark, you're not here to talk about the past. That's why you're discussing it!

And I've said similar things, myself. But honestly, what did you want him to say?

There are two other options:

1. A lie
2. The truth

Well, it's pretty clear that his statement was better than option 1, so it really comes down to option 2. I mean, he clearly didn't want to admit his steroid usage. He wasn't going to do it, so he took the only way out.

Sure he came out looking like an idiot. But this man's not being investigated for perjury.

Jack Morris - Hall of Famer?

Among the many things that inspire vociferous debates of baseball - and there are many - resides the ever-present Hall of Fame talk. Who should go in, and who shouldn't. I've given my thoughts (here) on Mark McGwire, and now I'd like to delve into a few of the other popular candidates.

Firstly, Jack Morris. 44% of voters last year believed that Jack Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame. And he's got quite a fan club among non-baseball writers, too. He is acknowledged as a gamer, a man who could give you that win when you really needed it, and is considered a great postseason pitcher.

The problem? He's just not Hall of Fame quality. I've read various things about his candidacy and have never seen this essential fact: If Jack Morris gets elected to the Hall of Fame, he will have the highest ERA of any Hall of Fame pitcher. I'm not trying to disrespect him here - obviously, with 44% of voters voting for him, he was a really good, quality, effective pitcher. But if elected to the Hall of Fame, there's no doubt that Morris would be lowering the proverbial bar.

You don't like ERA? In terms of ERA+, if elected, Morris would have the third lowest - behind only Catfish Hunter and Rube Marquard. So he wouldn't be the worst in terms of that. But, I mean, you have to see what I'm getting at. He doesn't make the cut.

Maybe if you think about his all-time numbers, you'll get my point. Among all pitchers with at least 1,000 innings, Morris is ... tied for 469th in ERA+. In ERA (also with a minimum of 1,000 innings), he's 732nd. I'm not saying that Morris is the 732nd best pitcher in baseball history. Or the 469th. Don't get me wrong - close to 4,000 innings pitched with an ERA 5% above average is quite good. I just don't think it's worthy of the Hall of Fame.