I love baseball.  I really do.  And I'm not about to follow that up with "buuuuuut....."  No, I genuinely love baseball.  It's better than any other sport out there.

I find it amazing because, over the course of a game, the action never changes.  Every single "play" is exactly the same.  In basketball half the game is on one end of the court and half is on the other.  The players are constantly in flux and running all over the place (unless you're watching the NBA, of course).  In football, not only does the action move from one side of the field to the other (unless you're watching the SEC's early season tune-up games) but there are times when the players are all still and in formations that look different every time.  In hockey...well, no one really watches hockey any more, do they?

But in baseball it's the same every time; nothing changes.  Nine guys in the field and a guy at bat.  The ball goes back and forth from the pitcher to catcher.  Sure, guys can be on base and a batted ball sends the defense into a frenzy, but it's the same thing over and over again.  Even when the uniforms switch colors and the other team takes the field, it all looks the same.

And perhaps part of the reason the intricacies of the game are fascinating and beautiful to true baseball fans is because, to the casual observer, the game looks exactly the same.  When the 1-1 pitch gets taken for a borderline strike, the next pitch is going to look exactly the same as if it were called a ball.  To the casual observer, nothing changed.  But the true baseball fan knows the batting average in a 2-1 count is over a hundred points higher than a 1-2 count.  The casual fan takes a sip of beer when the umpire yelled ball; the true fan pumps a fist or slams it on his seat depending on his allegiance.  He knows.

Baseball isn't easy to fully grasp and understand; that's why so many people find it boring.  There is a learning curve.  Having climbed the curve and being on the top makes you appreciate all the little things you've learned that much more.  You worked your way up and now you get to enjoy the game.  I certainly do.

But the people who haven't scaled the curve yet have it right, too.  Sort of.  Baseball doesn't change.  It hasn't changed for over a century.  It so subtly changes pitch to pitch, the changes can go unnoticed, but even the most observant baseball fan will be hard-pressed to find changes from year to year.  And I don't mean that in a bad way.  Again, it's a unique strength of the game.  In 2008 the AL and NL best hitters got a hit 33- and 36-percent of the time, respectively.  In 1908 the leaders did so 32- and 35- percent of the time, respectively.  Whether the Jerseys are insanely baggy and made of light-weight wicking performance fabric or insanely baggy and made of unbearably-hot wool, or the players names are Chipper and Mauer or Ty and Honus; the game has essentially been the same.

In 1908, Basketball consisted of 13--and only 13--rules, one of which was "The ball may be batted in any direction with one or both hands (never with the fist)."  In 2008...well, you can fill in your own anecdote for why basketball is far from the same game 100 years later.  One hundred years ago football was nowhere close to the same game it is today.  The "forward pass" was a revolutionary idea and a touchdown was worth five points.

Baseball is different from other sports, and that's why I love it.  It subtly changes from pitch to pitch, but stays the same from year to year which makes its history as relevant as its present.


Alright, I'm off the "Baseball is Great" soapbox (for now) and I'll get to what I set out to write about in this post...

Defensive Ideas.

Lets start with the rules...

Rule 5.05 in the Official Major League Rulebook states:

The defensive team's objective is to prevent offensive players from becoming runners, and to prevent their advance around the bases.

I don't know how long this rule has been in the book, but I'm again willing to bet it's been a while.  So why haven't teams come up with any better ways to follow this rule over the years?


The idea of a defensive shift is one thing you can point to that has been "invented" within the past 100 years of baseball.  I am no fancy historian, and I won't claim to be, but I have been told it started in the 1940s with Ted Williams.  From my knowledge, it was ground-breaking and controversial then.  It is no longer ground-breaking nor controversial because the "change" itself--the idea of the shift--has not changed since the '40s.  At least not to my knowledge.  When a dead-pull lefty comes up, the shortstop moves over to the first base side of second and bumps the second baseman over a few steps and into the outfield a bit.  And the announcer talks about it.  Baseball fans point to the field and whisper to casual fans.  It's genius.

And maybe it is.  But why haven't any more ideas like this come up?  Late in games fielders will move a few feet in a "no doubles" defense, but that isn't very ground-breaking.  You could make the case for one other defensive idea, and that would be pulling in an outfielder to become a 5th infielder in situations involving the game-winning run at third base with less than two outs.  But even that doesn't seem to happen much.  I remember growing up learning about it and getting excited, but now that I'm older, I honestly can't remember the last time I've seen it.



I have had some ideas for quite some time now and have been keeping them to myself until I could unveil them to the world in dramatic fashion and be remembered for years as a revolutionary.  This is not quite the grandiose unveiling I had in mind, but I'm getting tired of watching games and shouting to myself, "Why aren't they doing X, Y, or Z?."  Either way I'm fine with it, but more than anything I'm excited to hear why these ideas are stupid and would never work.

To follow the rule book some more, we are given these guidelines when a team goes on defense:

4.03 When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.

(a) The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

PENALTY: Balk.

(b) The pitcher, while in the act of delivering the ball to the batter, shall take his legal position;

(c) Except the pitcher and the catcher, any fielder may station himself anywhere in fair territory.

With that being noted...


Why don't the fielders ever swap positions?

I think it's safe to assume every team in the majors does not employ two corner outfielders with exactly the same defensive abilities.  I honestly have not watched a single nine inning MLB game on TV yet this year (that's sad, I know...what kind of baseball fan have I become now that I watch 140 games per year from the bullpen?), but I would have to think some teams employ a set of outfielders with varying defensive abilities.  So lets say a team has a better defensive right fielder than left fielder.  When a right-handed dead-pull hitter comes up to bat, why would the team merely shade the center fielder over to left field to help out the weaker left fielder, yet keep their better outfielder away from the action?

Why not have him jog over and switch with the left fielder for that batter?  I know the ball flight is different in right field than it is in left field, but I don't think it's impossible to think corner outfielders could adapt to being able to play both spots.

Maybe you wouldn't do it all the time, but it really seems like a no-brainer that at some point, throughout the course of over 100 games and 1000's of at bats, this would prove to be effective during a season.  Let's assume center fielders are so valuable they should never be interchanged with the corner guys and leave them out of this discussion; probably not the case, but we'll assume it.  That leaves us with left- and right fielders.  Inevitably the outfielder with the better arm goes in right field to make a throw to third base.  Well, let's say, by some crazy stretch of the imagination, that fielder with the better arm also happens to have better range.  It may not always be the case (I'm no scout, but Carl Crawford stands out in my head as a guy who may have a lot of range, but not enough arm to play right, so he's in left field in Tampa), but I'm willing to bet it has taken place before in baseball history.  So let's pretend you have a superior fielder in right and a comparatively inferior one in left...

If Cecil Fielder comes to bat with no runners on base (again off the top of my head, I'm using Cecil as a slow-footed pull-hitting righty), the only time you would need the superior arm in right is if Cecil hits a triple to right field.  I don't have career stats with batted ball trajectory at my fingertips (if any of you do, please feel free to interject) but I would be willing to bet Cecil hasn't hit many triples to the right fielder in his career. In fact, in 5,939 career plate appearances, Fielder amassed 7 triples:  that's all of one every 850 At Bats.  Even if all of them have gone to right field, that's hardly something to plan for.  And even if he does hit a triple to the right fielder, who's to say there will even be a close tag play at third with a good throw?  Who knows, maybe he's been thrown out trying to dig for third base ten times, but I'm willing to bet he hasn't.

He has, however, hit 787 singles and 200 doubles.  I'd be willing to guess more than a fair share have gone to left field.  Again, I don't have data on direction of batted balls, but let's say his spray chart shows 34% of his singles and doubles have gone to left, 33% to center, and 32% to right.  Again I'm willing to bet the split is way more left-field heavy than this, but even with this safe assumption, it would still tell us an additional 20 singles and doubles went to left than to right.  Even if all 7 of his career triples went to right field AND he pulled balls only 2% more often than he goes the other way, your left fielder would still be getting more action than the right fielder.  It's a simplified and completely fabricated example, but it has to make you think, right?  If you have a superior defender in right, why not move him to left in this instance?

If you had all the numbers in front of you and told me Fielder created X runs on non-home-run balls hit to left field and X+Δ on balls to right field, I would be shocked if Δ was positive, but I would be willing to admit in the case of Cecil Fielder you shouldn't switch fielders.  But I would figure there may be some hitters with a negative Δ.  And, I would argue, despite Fielder's negative Δ, the outfield switch could still be effective on him.  The only reason the better-armed outfielder goes in right field is so he can make the longer throw to 3rd base.  The throws to second and home are equally long, so with 2 outs and no one on, let's say Cecil has a positive Δ, there's now a marginally smaller value of Cecil stretching a double into a triple anyway, so my idea would have to have some value.  You see what I'm getting at?

Despite looking mostly the same all the time, we know baseball has so many different scenarios if you drill down and take a deeper look, even if this idea isn't universally beneficial, I'm willing to bet it would be in certain instances.  Sure, with a man on first and one out, even for a pull hitter, you may want your strongest arm in right field to stop the runner from getting to third with less than two outs on a single, but with two outs and no one on base, does arm strength really make much of a difference?

If convention was to express batting averages to the tenths place, drilling down further to the hundredths place would provide quite a bit of information.  Doing so to the thousandths place would do the same.  I'm not arguing to "drill down" and move batting average to the ten-thousandths here, rather I feel like switching the corner outfielders is like admitting batting average even exists.  I'm fine admitting the outfield switch may not always be the right move with a right-handed batter up, but then drill down and do it only with two outs and nobody on base.  Do it with a right-handed pull hitter at the plate and one out and a runner at third to put your best arm in left field in defense of a sacrifice fly.  Do it with the score tied in the bottom of the eleventh with the winning run on second and an opposite-field slap-hitting lefty at the plate to try to gun down the winning run at home.  Heck, who knows, maybe some hitters always sky the ball to right and center, but hit snap-hooks down the line in left so you should put your speediest outfielder in left field.  With all the data taken these days (both on hitters and on fielders), and all the situations that come up on a regular basis, the positional shift has to provide value somewhere.


Maybe a shortstop is so valuable you should put him at second base against some hitters.  Maybe there's a time where you should swap your corner infielders.

Managers play the odds all the time with pitching match-ups and relief pitchers and double switches galore.  But situationally the varying skill sets of the defenders apparently make no difference.  Or maybe they do, but no one ever thought to have them jog 300 feet once or twice an inning.

Or maybe they did, but it's a gamesmanship thing or, perhaps, they don't want to intrigue the casual fan too much.



Why doesn't one of the infielders move out into the outfield instead of shifting?


Big Papi has grown accustomed to the shift.  So, too, have fans.  I have to start this by admittedly pleading ignorance on any stats backing up the efficacy of the shift.  Has it taken many hits away from Ortiz?  I'm sure my fans can tell me (and I'll look forward to hearing).  But Papi has hit only 31% of balls on the ground this year.  So, when he steps to the plate, could a defensive shift take away more?  Why not move the shortstop into the right-center-field gap?  OK, OK, I know, the second baseman IS in right field when he shifts.  But I mean like, IN right field.  IN the gap.  Wouldn't a 4th outfielder make more sense than a 3rd infielder on the right side?  With 52% of Ortiz's balls being fly-balls, this seems to at least have a chance to make sense, right?  Maybe his fly balls are towering shots that a center fielder has time to run into the gap and camp under, but maybe not.  Who knows, maybe managers talked about this years ago and all decided it was dumb or doesn't hold up the honor and integrity of the game, but to me it just seems the shift keeps 4 infielders because, well, because you are supposed to have 4 infielders when you employ "the shift".  Oh, and not to rock the boat too much, but now that I think of it, maybe send your third baseman into the outfield and keep your shortstop where he is assuming he's better at fielding grounders.

Again, maybe the four infielder shift will take away more hits than shifting to have four outfielders.  But with two outs and no one on base, why not put four guys in the outfield on Ortiz in a situation where a double is significantly more detrimental than a double.  Again, not perfect reasoning here, and the stats are all fabricated, but let's say with Ortiz at the plate with the bases empty and two outs, and he only can hit a single or double and never strikes out.  Let's also say him hitting a single is worth 0.2 runs to the offense and a double is worth 0.5 runs to the offense.  Now, if you employ the shift the way we have become accustomed to with four infielders and three on the right side of second base, maybe Ortiz goes from hitting a single 20% of the time to hitting one 10% of the time.  If you employ my shift with four outfielders, maybe he goes from hitting a double 20% of the time to 15% of the time.

My shift makes Ortiz go from a .300 hitter to a .350 hitter--which on the surface seem like a bad thing--but he actually produces .005 fewer runs per at bat with two outs and no one on.  That is minuscule and (as mentioned) it's made up, but you can see where, despite appearing counter-productive on the surface, this may make for a viable strategy.


Along the lines of idea two...why can't you pull an outfielder in to the infield for more than the situation with the winning run on third and less than two outs?

This one is more far-fetched than the previous idea because it is very high-risk, but why not think of it?  Does anyone get tired of Ichiro hitting no-doubter ground ball singles?  Does that even make sense?  He has made a living off it long enough, we all know we have seen a game where he hits one in the hole to the left side and it's as no-doubt as an Adam Dunn mammoth home run.  Ichiro can hit a ground ball in the hole at short and unless another fielder was standing between the third baseman and shortstop it's a guaranteed hit.  So...why not put another fielder between the third baseman and shortstop?  Those grounders would become grounders right at someone.

Like I said, this is high-risk, and Ichiro is probably a bad example.  He seems to be legendary for his swing control and he would likely be able to hit the ball exactly where the vacated outfielder used to stand for a no-doubt inside-the-parker, but hey, not everyone is Ichiro.  Maybe uber-ground-ball-hitters like Luis Castillo (62% grounders hit this year) would lose 20 infield singles per year if you added a fifth infielder and would only pick up a few extra doubles.  Like I said, this one will be the hardest sell, but with batted ball info being what it is today, maybe we find Luis Castillo has hit 40 balls in the hole at shortstop and only hit 5 to the right fielder.  Maybe two outfielders (one in each of the gaps) will actually retire Castillo--or players like him--more efficiently than the normal 3 outfielder arrangement.  (Some guys are "gap" hitters, so why not fill the gaps and add an infielder?)  Like I said, this is the toughest sell in my mind as it seems a bit like pulling the goalie in a sport with no time clock, but, hey, it's at least worth the look.  A quick glance will tell us with two outs and no one on, a runner on first is worth .251 runs and a runner on third is worth .344 runs.  So if you cut down 20 of Castillo's singles, you'd save 5.02 runs--the equivalent value of 15.5 triples.  Maybe he would hit 16 extra triples.  Maybe he wouldn't, but I fear even if someone did try this, they'd pull the plug after the first triple.

So let's go on to another idea I'm more gung-ho about...


Why can't organizations teach their specialty and late relievers to play first base?

Pitchers are notoriously bad fielders, but after all, haven't most organizations taught their bad fielders to play first base already?  No offense to first basemen out there, but even they can probably admit they are at first because of their exceptional bats and not exceptional gloves.  Seriously, I mean no offense at all and I'll go on to say many first basemen have become quite good at the position through hard work.  It's a testament to them, but couldn't a pitcher do the same through hard work?  First base--which sits firmly at the bottom of Bill James' totem pole of the Defensive Spectrum--is a conglomeration of guys who, at one time or another, had to "learn" the position.  The saying goes, "everybody in the majors grew up pitching and playing short"...not first.  If everyone else had to learn it, why can't specialty relievers?

Casey Kotchman is the best defensive first baseman in the league with a 6.6 UZR/150--a measure of how many runs per 150 fielding games the player is above average--according to FanGraphs (at the time I began writing this, which was a few weeks ago).  As "disclaimered", this post isn't statistically sound, but lets say 150 games consist of 5700 At Bats (I reached this based off the fact the qualified relievers I'm about to talk about averaged 4.27 BF/IP, and assume 9 innings per game--losses on the road are less, but extra innings are more...ah it's close enough), so that leaves Casey Kotchman, the best defender in the league, worth 0.00116 runs per At Bat.  Second best in the league is 0.00054 runs per At Bat.  Over the course of a season, this is a credit to Kotchman and quality first basemen like him, but on an At Bat per At Bat basis, it's really not that many runs.

Darren O'Day has faced 215 batters and his RE24 is at 17.98 (RE24 uses this table to determine how many runs a player has created or saved for his team...I'm using it here because it compares runs to runs and gives a tangible feel for my argument).  That means, on a per-batter basis, he saves 0.09293 runs.  That's 80 times what the best first baseman in the league can do.  One hundred seventy-two times as many as the second best defensive first baseman in the league.  This isn't rocket science, nor should it be surprising, as the guy on defense with the largest hand in how many runs a batter will create is undoubtedly the pitcher.  Which is exactly my point.  I promise I have one and will get to it eventually...

But first, why do I use Darren O'Day for this example?  Is he way above the rest of the league in RE24/BF?  No, he's good, but not off the charts.  Rather, there are a few factors in why I picked him.  Namely, I played against him in the Midwest League in 2006 and we were both "side-arming" righties who had a decent amount of success.  He went on to the big leagues in 2008 and I have, of course, have followed him since.  What's more, being a side-armer implies "situational-ness," so he seemed like a good candidate.

On the flip side, he's a Ranger and therefor in the American League.  Why does this matter?  Well, Rule 6.10(b) in the official MLB rulebook states, among many other things:

Once the game pitcher is switched from the mound to a defensive position this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game.

This is idiotic if you ask me, but hey, who asked me?  But in the NL this works with no flaws, and again, if we drill down to certain situations, in the AL, double-switches and pinch-hitting are possibilities and often situational relievers are used very late in the game when, perhaps, a DH wouldn't even come to bat again.  Regardless, when you have situational relievers in the game, usually you are trying to hang on to a lead and prevent runs rather than create runs in subsequent innings (even so, the DH with the highest RE24/PA is Adam Lind at .06, which means the best DH in the league creates fewer runs per PA than O'Day saves per BF--I'm just saying...).


So, late in the game, if an opposing team's batting order goes righty, lefty, righty, why take O'Day out of the game when the lefty comes up and not stick him at first base with the idea of putting him right back on the mound for the next batter?  If he's twice as bad as the worst first baseman--let's say -0.00112 runs per batter, which is two times the runs the worst first baseman costs his team--in the league and is replacing the best, for that one left-handed batter, he will cost 0.00228 runs, but then for the next batter, the righty, he will return to the mound and save 40 times that, or 0.09239 runs, a net 0.09065 positive runs.  To begin with, he was only worth 0.09239 runs, and he just added .09065; you could say he has doubled his value.  And this makes sense, have him pitch to two batters instead of one and he's twice as effective.

Now, this doesn't quite compare apples to apples, but it's an interesting elementary look into the idea.  We would have to look at O'Day's RE24/BF splits against righties and lefties, and then look at how many runs the left handed pitcher you brought in to face the lefty would save.  Plus we didn't take into account how many runs the next righty out of the bullpen may save or what if a pinch hitter bats?  Not to mention, a first baseman's value is undoubtedly magnified with a lefty at the plate and we haven't taken into account the weighted value a fielder would have in, say, a bases loaded situation rather than bases empty.  I will leave all that to the guys who get paid to have this stuff left to them.  But all these caveats aside, the fact a pitcher can save runs more effectively than the first baseman by multiple orders of magnitude should make sense and should make you think.


Additionally, I don't want to use up space on this post to get into how much I despise intentional walks, but isn't it possible, bringing in an opposite-handed specialty reliever and sending the current pitcher to first base could be more run-effective than simply walking the batter?  In many cases, an IBB stems from a right-handed pitcher facing a left-handed batter or vice versa.  I remember reading somewhere on Hardball Times an Intentional Walk is worth 0.2 runs.  Pitchers could make really bad first basemen, but 0.2 runs is 400 times worse than the worst first basemen in the league.  Again, not apples to apples, but it is runs to runs.  I know in many instances an Intentional Walk is of a batter who is of no significance:  In the bottom of the ninth, with a tie score and a runner on second, if the batter gets walked intentionally, it makes no difference if he scores.  But this isn't always the case.  It has to matter at some point.  Again, drill down to more situations and there has to be some value.

Maybe this doesn't seem to be that big of a deal, and it really isn't.  Baseball is only a game and this is a very tiny part of the game, but Darren O'Day is on pace to be worth $6.4 million dollars in WAR terms.  That's a big deal.  Darren O'Day has pitched in 57 games and 44 times has been pulled in the middle of an inning or has been asked to walk a batter intentionally (as of a week or so ago).  That's 77% of his innings.  It's incredible how much value he has, yet how often he's asked to not add value by either walking a batter or walking to the bench.  There has to be some potential value in moving him to first base.  Not to beat a dead horse, but 77% is actually quite low for Major League Relievers.  Of the 146 relievers that qualify on Fangraphs, ironically 77 of them have a higher percentage than 77%.  Twenty-three players have been pulled or asked to intentionally walk a batter in greater than 90% of their outings.  If you look at the number of times a pitcher has been pulled mid-inning plus the number of IBBs they have and divide by the number of appearances they have, Luke Gregerson, Brian Sanches, Darren Oliver, and Eric O'Flaherty all have ratios greater than one!

In case you're not a math junkie (and kudos to you for getting this far if you're not), I'll spell out the case of Gregerson, who happens to be a friend of mine and happens to be putting together an incredible season in SD.  He has pitched in 66 games this year and has been pulled mid-inning 61 times and has 8 IBB.  That means 69 times in 66 appearances he, despite having an outstanding 2.32 FIP (a defense-independent stat on same scale as ERA), has been asked to not try getting the next hitter out.  Many times this may be the result of a closer coming in or maybe he hit his pitch count, but I'm willing to bet many of these pulls and IBBs are a result of him facing a left-handed batter.  Why not move him to first base for a batter or two and then let him come back to the mound?


I realize this isn't something that should happen every 7th and 8th innings, but I doubt it would never be effective.  Maybe Darren O'Day IS 400 times worse at first base than the worst first baseman in the league.  But, on the same token, maybe some situational relievers are actually better than the worst first baseman in the league.  Managers often go Righty, Lefty, Righty out of their bullpen for consecutive batters and let's say this is equally--if not more--effective as my idea to move the reliever to first base.  If so, maybe there's value in saving one right-handed arm in the bullpen and having the first righty play first base for one batter, only to return to the mound.  

Right now O'Day is on pace to be worth $6.4 million this year, and he could potentially double this if he just played a little first base.  For $6 mil extra, I'll take a few short-hops here and there.  Granted, this is very elementary and basic, because it doesn't deal with splits and all the details I mentioned above.  When the left-handed batter steps up to the plate and O'Day waddles over to play first, he may cost more because with a lefty batting, the first basemen is more important.  Maybe his value is just as high on the mound against lefties.  Maybe the next two pitchers in the bullpen has an equally high value, so the manager can sub a lefty for O'Day and come right back with another equally good righty for the next batter.  Maybe I grew up playing the infield, so I'm just trying to go back to my glory days.  Either way, drill down.  Pull off a double switch.  Use your bench a little.  Give us something else to whisper about in the seats or announcers to wax all-knowing in the booth.




You can't go one series in the NFL (or even one quarter in College Football) without the announcer saying something about the Cover-2 or Nickel or Dime packages on defense.  It's commonplace.  When the offense lines up with 5 wide-outs, switch to a Dime package.  A tight end and a guy in the slot?  Go to Cover-2.  The right defense is predicated by the offensive formation.

Well, in baseball, when a dead-pull right-handed slugger comes up with no one on and two outs, why not change formations?  If an added wide-out in football calls for a completely different personnel and formation, why then, when Cecil Fielder stepped to the plate in 1989 did he not call for a different formation than when his left-handed son does the same in 2009?...let alone Ichiro!

Despite the fact the game looks the same every pitch, we know it isn't.  Yes, Ty Cobb stood exactly as far from the pitcher and first base as Ichiro does today.  Honus Wagner went after balls in the hole and had to throw to first just like Jeter does today (well maybe not in the air or with such defined cheek bones, but you get my drift).  The game hasn't changed over time, but batter to batter--within a game--it does.  Bases empty with two outs is a significantly different situation than a runner on third with one out or bases loaded and no outs.  Adam Dunn is an all-together different hitter than Adam Everett or Adam Kennedy or Adam Jones.  So maybe it's time for the game to change over time just a bit.

I dread a day where the umpire does call the 1-1 a strike and the count runs to 1-2 and the pitcher steps off the back of the mound and looks at the play book on his glove wrist and calls out a defense and the fielders scatter.  One issue baseball already has is the time of games are too long.  I don't want to add to this at all, but who knows, maybe these ideas can be employed twice a game and will get an extra out, reducing the time of games.

Baseball is already way better than football, basketball, hockey, or any other sport out there.  That's not to say I don't enjoy other sports, it's just baseball is a deeper enjoyment.  But maybe baseball can take after other sports, even if only a tiny bit.  I'm not saying to change personnel to add to a prevent defense or switch to man-to-man or change line shifts.  But why not occasionally switch corner outfielders?  Why not pull in an outfielder or push out an infielder?  Why not let O'Day or Gregerson play first base?

I'd be perfectly willing to admit these ideas weren't good if someone could explain to me why.  If it's a result of an unwritten rule within baseball that you just don't switch fielders because, perhaps, it will make one of the fielders look less adept than others, well, I can understand that.  If it's something where there's more honor in taking on a hitter the "right way" and still getting him out, well then OK, fine, I'll accept that too.  It seems unfortunate that these would stand in the way of strategic moves to increase a team's chance of winning, but I could stomach it nonetheless.  I doubt the reason is because no one has thought of these before, but maybe it is.  I haven't ever heard anything about any of these and I'd be curious to find out why they aren't used in practice. 

I'm not trying to change the game I love or call for unnecessary defensive formations to get football and basketball fans to come over to baseball.  I am thinking out loud of strategies that may make sense within the game.  I would have no idea how to come up with a new defensive scheme against football's Wildcat offense, but baseball allows us to think within the game.  A relief pitcher moving over to play first base for a batter while another pitcher comes in for one batter would be an exciting move.  Two outfielders switching positions for a batter would make sense to true fans and would be, if nothing more, interesting to casual fans.  But much like Dave Roberts leading off in the 9th inning of game 4 of the 2004 ALCS, the true fans who knew the significance of the situation and the numerical consequences behind it, such a defensive strategy could be that much more exciting. 

There very well could be a good reason as to why these are dumb ideas and would be less effective than just playing everything straight up.  I'd be first to admit I'm an idiot who has been wondering for years why ineffective strategies haven't been employed.  But I'd like to think there may be some merit to them and over the course of a season they could help a team eke out a few extra wins.




Either way, I will still love baseball.

So the end of the season travels have settled down a little bit as Mrs. Disco and I have now had some time to relax a bit and get to some catching-up online.  I have just finished a new post which I will put up soon (on a non-monday of course).  Since Sept. 6th (the last night of the season) I have slept on 9 different mattresses across the country.  We recently were in Alabama, Michigan, Toronto and have gotten 2 oil changes since the end of the season

Don't worry...Don't panic.  I'm not going to stop blogging.  I simply haven't picked up my laptop since the season eneded last monday.  That's no exaggeration.  I honestly haven't cracked my laptop.  That, without a doubt, is the longest stretch of my life without a computer since we first got that Apple IIGS back in the day.  So I will be on here and will be posting during the off season I just haven't been 

Last day of the season and this one has particularly gone by quickly.  well not htis day, this season I meant.  This day is actually just beginning (it's actually late Sunday Night) but I'm posting because I will be busy all day tomorrow. We have a day game for labor day and then have a flight back to Omaha which we will leave for directly from the field.

Threw tonight and blew a save to send us into 15 innings which was terrible, but I guess on the bright side, I did strike out the side for the first time....ever that i can re

The last time I wrote (and you kindly answered) I asked about what pitches you threw.  This time I have 3.5 questions: 1) Do pitchers generally only throw fastballs in the 8 pitches they get to warm up when they come into the game (or at the beginning of the inning) or do they try all of their pitches? 1.5) Do you have certain routine you go through with these pitches?  2) What glove do you use (make, model)?  3) Besides working on your book and updating your blog, what are you going to do in the off season?
Adam S. Arlington, VA

<2.) Most pitchers have a specific routine they go through for their warm-up pitches.  For example, I typically throw 2 fastballs, 2 sliders, a change-up, a rise ball, and then finish with two fastballs.  Between innings, typically I throw 7 pitches and will often take out the rise ball.  Some days I will throw an extra slider or change-up depending on how the first ones felt.  I think most pitchers are that way.  If a particular pitch doesn't feel right, they will throw an extra one or two.  But for the most part, they throw fastballs.  When you get on the mound, you should already be ready to throw, so for the most part you are just getting used to the mound and the visuals of the park.

2.) Since college, I have always used Rawlings Gloves.  Do you hear that Rawlings?  I have used your gloves uninterruptedly for ten seasons now and have had the option to freely go to another company.  Who better to represent your company as a spokesperson than a loyal customer with thousands of fans who don't play baseball themselves?  That's right, I don't have a sponsorship.  Yet.  Oh, the model?  I have had a Rawlings ProS15TC.

3.) To be honest, I really don't know what the off season will hold for me and Mrs. Disco.  We have been nomads for two years now since selling Mrs. Disco's condo, so we will probably be visiting friends and family for a decent part of the winter months.  I will probably take a month or two off from throwing and then will start getting in shape for next season around December.  Being married to a yoga/pilates master and personal trainer, even if I tried taking a week off from working out and being in good physical shape after the end of the season, she wouldn't let me.  So needless to say I'll be working out in the gym all off season.  I will be looking for work (so if anyone is hiring, let me know) and hopefully will get some freelance web design work which allows me to maintain a flexible workout and travel schedule.  Mrs. Disco will work as a trainer and yoga/pilates instructor as well.  We are looking forward to the off season as it will really be one of our first opportunities to be a "normal" married couple for a few months.

I may play winter ball.  We are waiting to hear about that.



Big fan of the blog. What's your take on stirrups as part of the baseball uniform?  Some guys wear their pant legs down to their shoes, while others (seemingly, just a few), pull up their pant legs to show some stirrup.  I have to admit, I'm an old school guy, and I like the stirrups.  Seems like from your picture, you do too.
Keep up the good work,
EJ S.,

The Royals minor league affiliates made a uniform switch to stirrups in 2007.  I have worn my pants up at my knees since high school, so I've always been a fan of the high socks, but now that we have mandatory rules regarding pants, I'm not that unique anymore.  That being said, when I get to the big leagues, I'll have the opportunity to be unique.  As most everyone is aware, the pant style currently in the big leagues has become one of extremely baggy and extremely long pants.  Like over the shoes long.  I posted in spring training about the cognitive dissonance I experienced with my pants when I backed up a big league spring training game.  My consensus was at home I would wear my white pants down and on the road I would wear my pants up with stirrups.  We'll see how that evolves.

I have been planning to do something on the 29th of every month in honor of Quiz.  If you guys have any suggestions, I'm open to them.  I may go with the mid-calf pants and high stirrups (see below) because I can't grow a mustache on command and besides, let's be honest, I need a few Rolaids Relief Man awards under my belt before I've earned such a supreme mustache above my lip.





Mr. Disco, (haven't called anyone that since that one video in college, but I was young and needed the money), I am new to the Disco Mania, and have read the entire archive, but still have not found the fake interview that started it all, is it somewhere to be found?
J, Kansas City, KS

The guest blog that started it all can be found at this link.  You can also find the link from my bio, which you may enjoy reading.

 

I threw well and got a save tonight which was nice.  Was a well-pitched game all around and was fun to end it with a 1-2-3 inning with some groundouts.

I have to give a shout out to Disco fan Nick O., who submitted this video to show me fans across the world are taking notice of my blog and my suggestions and though this wasn't the money making idea I had proposed, it's nice to see people are reading and paying attention.

Now, as many fans have pointed out, if only Adrian Beltre had read

This question is directed to Mrs. Disco:
Mrs. Disco, what are the steps I need to take in order for me to score a ball player?  
Tina C., Boston, MA.   
 
Tina,   
For whatever reason, the way you asked "score a ball player" I can already tell you're a cool chic, so hopefully this answer will turn out to be the "Official Guide on How to Score A Ball Player" for many years to come.

Initially Chris didn't realize this question was directed towards me, and the poor sap gave you this reply:

"Well, if he's on third with less than two outs, there's tons of ways.  A sacrifice fly, ground out to short or second, or any type of base hit will do. With two outs, you're gonna need a hit of some kind or a wild pitch or error to score him.  From second, try a single--or better yet a double--to get him in.  And from first, go ahead and just lean back and hit a towering Home Run.  But don't ask me, I've got all of zero career RBI's in pro ball."

Thanks, honey, but I'm pretty sure she was asking how to score one for herself ... getting to second WITH a player, not for a player.
 
First and foremost, whatever you do, don't go the groupie route.  Trust me on this one.  
Ironically, I just had a funny conversation about groupies the other night with one of Chris's fellow teammates.  The teammate said to me, "What's the deal with those girls hanging all over Player X, Player Y, and Player Z?" 

"They're groupies."  

"Groupies? I can't believe those are groupies ... I've don't think I've ever seen one before.  What makes them groupies?"

"Well, they're the kind of girls who will put out for pretty much any player and I wouldn't doubt that they get passed around a little bit.  She's hoping she'll be the one girl he can't live without." 

He was astonished.  "But those guys??" 

"Yea.  They don't really care what he looks like; they're just hearing cha-ching because they're professional athletes."

He says, "That's so weird," and then chuckles as he says, "Well they're going for the wrong guys then because they obviously don't know minor leaguers are poor.  That's just nasty."

I'm pretty sure that sums it all up.  Groupies are not respected by players and solely looked at as a fresh piece of ***.  Yes, I did just say that.  Though, if you are lucky enough to get yourself knocked up, then you may end up being more than a groupie.  Within the year you'll get a promotion to "baby mama", but hey, still better than a groupie.
 

So... how to score him?  You could always send me your resume and pictures for review and I could try to pair you up. (I think I'm up to 5 couples who have met through me and have gone on to get married.)  No, that won't work, but one way is by working out in the off-season at a gym players are known to use. (Disco scored me at the gym.  But as soon as I found out he was a professional athlete, I laced up my running shoes and sprinted the other way.  (Too bad I was only on the treadmill, though, otherwise I might have gotten away.))

See, working out and being athletic will increase your chances because these guys spend the majority of their day running around, so a girl who enjoys staying fit will help your case. I've experienced guys rating girls for their 'breed-ability' - as in "Look at those long legs, we would totally make 3rd round babies."  Or "She's a bit clumsy, my genes are gonna have to carry our kid hopefully into the top twenty rounds."  Or "She's kinda got cankles, our kids are gonna have to play soccer."  A 3rd round breeder is obviously way better than a 30th rounder or non-drafted altogether.  For some guys, the cutoff is whether or not he's going to be able to retire off your first male child's signing bonus.  In fact, one particular baseball wife (who is now a good friend of mine) would be considered a First Pick Overall breeder for her Division-I volleyball experience and 5-foot-11 frame with 30 inch vertical leap.  Imagine the star athletes those two will have?  Combine her with her 6'4, 92-mph-throwing pitcher husband and Scott Boras is practically slipping her rufies and cranking the Marvin Gaye as we speak.

Why'd I go with a non-drafted guy who throws 92 yards per hour?  Well, I didn't know about this ahead of time, that's why I've made it my mission to fill you in now.

To be honest, Tina, scoring a baseball player sounds way more glamorous than it is... which leads me to my next question:


Mrs. Disco,
Where are the best and worst parts of being married to a baseball player?
Jordan R., Monmouth, OR  

Jordan (and still Tina),  
Thanks to both of you - I love getting my own questions!  As I was saying, this lifestyle (in the minor leagues anyway) sounds much more glamorous than it really is.  Tina, if you want to score one, be ready to live alone every other week, know you'll never have a weekend together between February and September, plan to jam all of your clothes, shoes, and anything else you'd need for 8 months into one or two suitcases, attend all weddings or summer events by yourself, and also be secure enough with yourself to pay for groceries with a food stamp ATM card. 

Oh what's that Tina? You're starting to change your mind?

The good parts about this lifestyle?  Hmm.  Can I finish this question next Friday so I have some time to think about it?












Kidding.  I would say the best part is, I know this is going to sound cheesy, but the best part is having the opportunity to experience this dream together.  How many people do you know who are not only striving towards their life's dreams, but also on the verge of realizing it?  The lifestyle overall has taken a lot of getting used to, specifically trying to figure out how to make my passions fit in with his schedule and travel, but now that I've found a groove, I'm a lot happier and it's exciting to encourage one another to achieve bigger and greater goals.  Like writing our book, for example.  It gives us both an achievable goal to work towards and we're having a blast bouncing ideas off one another.

Another aspect that goes under both columns is the travel.  The week-long road-trips and 5 AM flights after a game that ended only 6 hours earlier is tough, but I've seen more of the United States this year than I have in my entire live.  In fact, prior to meeting Chris I had been to more countries than states (26 vs. 22) and in the past 2+ years I've added an additional 11 states to my list!  I've always wanted to visit Portland, OR and finally got my chance a couple weeks ago when the Royals played there and I L-O-V-E-D it. Totally my kind of city and discovered one of the most gorgeous beaches I've ever been to - Cannon Beach a little over an hour from Portland.  (See pics below.  Isn't it beautiful??) 


My suggestion to Tina is if you happen to bump into a baseball player definitely do not chase him.  In fact, run as fast as you can in the opposite direction and don't look back.  If somehow (other than you  mistakenly being on a treadmill) he catches up to you (or beans you with his fastball...good thing I was on that treadmill because I can run faster than my man's heater) to prove he's not the usual groupie-seeking player, then I look forward to meeting you in the stands someday.  Otherwise, I'm willing to bet marrying a golfer, lawyer, or engineer will suffice. ;)

Best, Mrs. Disco






What would happen if you hired two private investigators to follow each other?
Aaron D., Kansas City, MO

Aaron, thank you for this question.  You will find out why I am glad you asked.

One of the things that comes along with the minor league lifestyle (along with countless scrunched up eyebrows and squished faces asking, "You're an athlete?  Like a real one?") is a lot of moving.  Since graduating college in 2005 I have lived in 16 different residences--some on multiple occasions (and 11 of those 16 have been since I met Mrs. Disco in Nov. 2006).  The reason I mention this is two of the past three we have lived in have had a roundabout within a quarter mile of the residence, which was necessary to use on a daily basis.  I have come to hate roundabouts.  Here are some reasons why:

• I don't know where to look while driving on a roundabout.  Especially the one-lane roundabouts.  Do you look at the curb so you don't drive up on it (and the pointless bushes that are always in the middle), or do you look ahead of you to see if there's a car entering that you're about to hit because no one actually yields at a one-lane roundabout.

• No one actually yields upon entering a residential, one-lane roundabout.

• No matter where you are coming from and where your destination is, if you plan to return from whence you came, you have to travel 360 degrees around the roundabout.  I even tried leaving the roundabout early and make a U-Turn to enter the roundabout again, but this left me with 3 trips which added up to 360 degrees instead of two.  Much worse.  Don't try that.  It's like driving in a roundabout with your Geometry Teacher in the passenger seat.

• It takes longer than a stop sign (which you can always kinda roll through).

• It makes the GPS lady sound like she's stuttering or laying down a verse for the next Top-40 Hip-Hop remix.

• Going left into the roundabout is incredibly tempting (as it defies everything roundabouts stand for) but once you actually do it--er theoretically do it--you realize exiting the roundabout becomes tough because they put those little curb wedges at each entrance/exit to stop people from doing stupid things like going left in the roundabout.

• If drunk driving is illegal, why do they force me to dizzy myself in order to exit my neighborhood and enter the outside world?

• Multiple-lane roundabouts are even worse.  I have this thing about on merging to the left when I have my wheel turned to the left.  The fact I can merge right while turning the wheel to the left leaves me more confused than does anything involving the international dateline or a freshly washed sports bra that needs folding.

• Which blinker do you engage when you use a roundabout?  Me?  I go with flashers, hi-beams, and a constant horn blow.  If I knew how to manually deploy the airbag I think I would.

• At night, a roundabout makes sure every house in every direction in the neighborhood gets a solid dose of headlights in their bedroom window.

• I have more reasons, but I don't have time to type them all here as I have to leave six hours early so I have time to muster up the courage to finally exit the roundabout and go on my way to the park.

• Oh, and lastly, doesn't it seem like more than coincidence the same group that sings Roundabout also sings Long Distance Runaround, Perpetual Change, Hold On, Leave It, and Siberian Khatru ^[1]?  The answer is both eponymous and obvious:  "Yes".

A few weeks ago I called a local boyscout troop and asked them to build me some entrance and exit ramps for the roundabout out of balsa wood as a community service project.  I was very impressed with the craftsmanship and lack of desire to eat the glue the kids showed and the end result was beautiful.  I was confident the problem was going to be solved and the ramps worked perfectly until someone tried to actually use them.

So that was a failure and again I was left succumbing to the roundabout.

I felt hopeless (and dizzy) like there was no way I was going to be able to outsmart the stupid roundabout.  I even went so far as to organize an art fair on the pavement of the dreadful piece of neighborhood infrastructure it would effectively boycott it.  It rained that day, so again, I was left without a means to put an end to the roundabout.  If only I could figure out a way to make the roundabout completely obsolete in our driving culture, I could put an end to the nonsense and make city planners get their heads out of the exit of their digestive roundabout.  It's not just about me, it's about my kids and your kids.  And our kids' kids.  But I had no creative way to bring a roundabout to a complete, useless patch of gravel.

Until your question.

I have since called two private eyes and cross-hired them to "investigate" each other and told them the other one lives just off the roundabout on my block.  This was on Tuesday, and ever since, the two investigators have been in their creepy vans chasing each other at wildly varying speeds in circles around the roundabout.  The traffic has backed up for miles with no openings to enter and the horn honking can be heard throughout the night.  Enough neighbors have complained, there have been city planners looking into a way to bypass the circle with a normal road a half block east.

So, as I said, thank you Aaron, I hope to never again have to switch my sun visor location six times in the span of four seconds in the mornings all while turning left but going right and signaling where I intend to end up with my flashers.



Dear Disco,
When you get called up to KC, I would like to come out and see you pitch.  However, I was trying to think up a clever poster idea to wave over the bullpen and show my Disco fandom.  After a lot of thinking, and realizing how not-funny I am (somehow, "Poop Stick!!" on a poster didn't seem overly hilarious), I thought, who better to ask than the funniest blogger I know?!  So, when you envision your major-league debut, what do the posters being waved over the bullpen say?
Jessie F., Kansas City, MO


First I'll let the craziest Disco fan, Dan-O show off some art work he has done.  He promised to submit some artwork of me on a weekly basis, and though he has fallen a bit short, he still has done some flattering work.  It's been too long since I've featured him on here, so it's about time.  I'll let him take it home by using his own words for the captions:

I have no question, but I have enclosed two Fan Art pieces.  The first one is an advanced piece that I developed after your inspirational answer to my first question.  The depth in your pitching secrets led me to imagine plotting and concocting the most deceptive ways to get outs.  Then I gave you mischievous eyebrows.  It is aptly titled "discohayes1."

Then the other is just historical fact.

Despite his hours of work on shading my eyebrows, I'm worried these posters just aren't going to perfectly convey what we want to get across.  So I'll take a stab.  And I'll admit, much like Dan-O, this is still a work in progress.  I don't know how great a sign it makes for, but I think I have come up with a decent slogan for my blog and perhaps myself.  I'll let you decide if it's poster-worthy.

I wanted something grandiloquent that people wouldn't really understand.  See, I have this theory the only reason everyone lllllloved The Matrix is because they didn't understand it.  The safest route, though, is to profess love for it, so it doesn't seem they missed the meaning.  I have tested this theory on countless people and no one can sit down and explain to me the concept of that movie without it playing in the background.  It's like trying to sing American Pie without the song playing.

Anyway, not to sound cocky here, I'll admit, I have no clue what the hell the Matrix was about and until last night, I really had little idea what these words in my motto meant.  But you are going to absolutely love this motto.  Or tag line.  I guess it's more of a tag line.




It's genius.  It's gonna be on T-Shirts and tattoos across the globe.

Or a poster:

Diagonally
Ipsilateral
Sophomorically
Corrigible
Opinions

The way I throw is diagonally ipsilateral in that my one arm (ipsilateral means pertaining to one side of the body) goes down and out in a diagonal motion.  My opinions are expressed on the blog in a manner that is immature and in need of refinement (sophomorically and corrigible, respectively).  It fits me like a glove.

And the best part...look at the Acronym. Take one letter at a time from each of the words in order.  It spells D-I-S-C-O.


Good, but not genius, right?.  Does it leave you wanting more?

My tag line should be a tribute to things that people have come to know and love about me:  how "hard" I throw, what I spend my free time doing, and then the story of the stick that set me free to Triple-A.

So, let's revisit this genius poster which unveils a beautiful poem about those exact things people love about me:

Diagonally       dIagonally       diAGonally        
Ipsilateral      iPsilateral      ipSilateral
Sophomorically   sOphomorically   soPhomorically
Corrigible       cOrrigible       coRrigible
Opinions         oPinions         opInions

As you clever readers had probably already noticed, if you had gone levels further with alternating one letter from each word, you would have found a beautiful poem had already written itself.

Disco.
I poop.
A sprig.

I've tried going further with the pattern and found some stuff that makes no sense like "I hr no loi in am go".  I think it's Keanu Reeves trying to tell us something.  But I don't quite get it.





But I lllllllove it.

---

No, ladies.  I'm not single.  I need to put an end to that dream for you right here.  If, despite your overwhelming disappointment, you decide to continue reading, you'll see where I get my second title from.

First, some background on the "Ouch, My BABIP":

While mired in a mini-slump to start my Double-A season this year, I wrote a blog post complaining about my BABIP ^[1] publicly in hopes of bringing it back towards the mean (approximately .290).  At the time I wrote the post, Double-A hitters had gone 14-40 off me when putting the ball in play, which makes for a BABIP of .350.  I complained about it, and from that point forward, batters went 19-for-92 off me when they put the ball in play; a BABIP of .207!  It made for a combined BABIP of .250 which was a tick higher than years past for me, but much more stomach-able than .350.

I hope that post didn't come off as whiny, but rather was informative and interesting.  I will attempt to do the same here because I'm nearly at my wits end.  After the success I had in Double-A this year, I was promoted to Triple-A.  I started out in Omaha doing decently, but even so, felt a bit unlucky again.  What I experienced to start the season was nothing compared to what came next.  It only got worse from there.

I didn't want to have to write this.  Seriously I didn't.  But it seems every time I take the mound, I'm in a messed up way making my case "better" for the post and it's killing me on the field.  I have had this saved as a draft for a week now, and after giving up 21 hits in my last 10.1 innings pitched, it's high time I update the numbers and finally post something to put an end to it.


Here are some stats from my Triple-A season so far this year.  I've made 21 appearances, and below I have broken down the stats into my first 10 appearances and my last 11.  I left my ERA blank on the second half to build the suspense, but judging by the background info, I'm sure you can guess where this is going.




Not much really has seemed to change from my first 10 appearances to my next 11, right?  I have cut down on my extra base hits per nine innings (XBH/9), which seemed to be a slight problem for me to start.  I have maintained my strikeout rate at 3.8 per nine innings (yeah, I know that's not good, but my K rate has never really been that high; it's a product of my style of pitching, which I have deemed: "Make them hit it softly, not hardly") and my ground-out to air-out ratio (GO/AO) has stayed almost the same at about 1.5.  The rate at which I'm throwing strikes (Strike %) has been almost identical and my pitches per plate appearance (P/PA) have actually decreased, which is something I like to see.  So what's different?  Well those of you paying attention would immediately notice my walk numbers (BB/9) have doubled!  That's the problem, I'm walking too many guys.  Well, Greg Maddux's career BB/9 rate was 1.8, so in my worst moments having a better walk rate than Maddux isn't anything I feel guilty about.  I don't think the walks are the issue.

Alright, enough with the suspense.  I'm embarrassed to say this, but my ERA in my last 11 games is 6.48.  

That's horrible.  Like terrible, horrible.  I have given up 12 ER in my last 12 games.  Nine of those earned runs have come in my last five outings.  So what's the difference?

I went from giving up 6.5 singles per nine innings in the first half to 13.5 singles per nine since.  I have given up 19 singles in my last 10.1 innings.  It's bizarre.  I have given up 3 or more singles in one inning in five of those last 11 appearances.  I gave up 7 singles last outing.  For some reason beyond my comprehension, despite being head over heels for Mrs. Disco, I find myself again "Living the Single Life"...

It's bad now, but even in my first 10 outings, it seemed like everything was falling in for hits (when my BABIP was .324) so I did everything I could to not walk guys and limit the damage.  Despite the "bad luck" and higher-than-average BABIP, I was able to do so and maintained a 2.66 ERA.  But in my last 11 outings, my BABIP has gone to .412 and my ERA has suffered almost three-fold.


If, at the point of my promotion, you told me through my first 40.1 innings in Triple-A I would have surrendered only one home run, and walked only five batters, I would have been happy to hear the news.  I would have figured I'd be pretty happy with my results.  Let the rest of the chips fall where they may, but by keeping the ball in the ballpark and making guys swing the bat, those facts would indicate I had been executing the way I set out to (again "Make them hit it softly, not hardly"...it's clever...I swear...It's kind of a pun..."hardly"?...Bueller).  If you added that I would give up eight doubles and two triples, I wouldn't be ecstatic because backing up bases is never fun, but 11 extra-base hits in 40.1 innings is pretty darn good.  Now, if you added that my ERA was 4.24 due mostly to the fact I've surrendered more than a single per inning (42 in 40.1 IP), I would be left scratching my head.  It wouldn't really make sense.  And I would respectfully decline.


For the Triple-A season my BABIP is .366 which is way "above" average.  The difference between .366 and .290 may not seem like that much---a .366 hitter is good, but so is a .290 hitter--so go the other way and think of the difference between a .290 hitter and a .214 hitter.  That's stark.  Look recently at the difference between .424 and .290 and we can go from Mauer to Mendoza pretty quickly.  In my case, the difference between .366 and .290 is an extra 11 hits on the year.  In only 40 innings, I could definitely use 11 hits being erased off the board.

Further, as I will get to in a second, if I were able to repeat my last two years' Double-A .250 BABIP performance, you'd have to erase 17 hits!  Could 17 hits scattered over the course of the year lead to 10 runs?  It's not inconceivable to think so.  In a heartbeat I'd take the same performance on my part, but shave off 10 runs to now have a 2.01 ERA instead of a 4.24.  If my BABIP repeated itself, I wouldn't have pitched any different so far this year, but could have a 2.01 ERA.

I was asked in an interview this off-season about my low BABIP in 2008 and whether my 1.64 ERA was maybe lower than it deserved to be and if my BABIP would perhaps regress to the mean in 2009.  In the interview I argued I had more control over BABIP because of my submarine pitching style and my ability to induce soft contact.  And, as I mentioned above, despite an "unlucky" start, I supported my theory and was able to have a low BABIP in Double-A again this year and rode that to a 0.98 ERA in 36.2 innings.  My BABIP ended up being .270 overall in Double-A this year, and at the time of my promotion, I can guarantee I was more than happy to claim proud responsibility for my continued low BABIP in 2009.

If I claimed responsibility when things were going well, then when they aren't, I can't just chalk it up to bad luck.  If I had a hand in making my BABIP .250 in two Double-A seasons, I have had a hand in making it .366 and .424 recently here in Triple-A.  So has the .366 BABIP here in Triple-A made me a believer I have no impact on what happens after the batter makes contact?  Absolutely not.  I still take credit for the low BABIP in Double-A and I will--gulp--take credit for it now in Triple-A.

Maybe Triple-A hitters are just that much better?

Maybe, but even that doesn't quite add up.  Through my first four games in Triple-A my BABIP was .268:  I was still inducing soft contact.  Through seven games and 20 innings (exactly half of my innings here in Triple-A to date) it was .283, not amazing, but still I was keeping it under average.  Well, in my next 21 innings it has been .424.  Not huge sample sizes, but it does seem like my first 20 innings everything was just about on par with my past performances and then the wheels came off.  Again, what happened?

I really don't know.  Honestly I don't.  I've been trying to answer that question myself for over a month now.  I have used the term "luck" in quotes in this post to indicate the BABIP theory hints at the rate of hits being random chance.  I don't fully discount the theory (and more in-depth reading will indicate I have dumbed it down and even BABIP-believers admit 7% of BABIP is attributed to skill) I take full responsibility for this upswing in BABIP, though.  I have been giving up more line drives than I ever have before.  Now, in my defense, the fact I have given up only two doubles in my last 11 games, I will say, for the most part, the line drives haven't all been hit squarely on the sweet spot.  I have given up a lot of hits that have been struck decently--not great--but have had a trajectory to drop them out over the infielders and in before the outfielders.

If these hits had left the bat at a downward trajectory, they would almost certainly be ground-outs as, typically, only very hard hit and well-placed ground balls get through for hits (though, again in my defense, in my last two outings I have given up three chopped infield hits).  So, it seems I need to get more ground balls.  But last year, when I had a 1.64 ERA and a BABIP of .235, my GO/AO was 1.57.  This year in Triple-A it's 1.5.  As a submarining sinker-baller, you'd perhaps expect higher numbers, but my slider is more of a pop-up pitch because, in comparison to my sinking fastball it appears to float and guys typically hit it in the air.  As a quick example, in my recent outing in Tacoma, I recorded 4 "air outs" and three of them were soft flies to the short stop off of my slider.  I haven't had many air outs where the outfielder has tracked the ball to the wall and made a great catch.

When the batter puts the ball in play, there are three types of contact: Ground Balls, Line Drives, and Fly Balls.  Hitters like to hit line drives and BABIP info here will show you why.  For me, it has seemed like I still get ground balls and I get some balls in the air, but it's the middle ground--the line drives--that I have inadvertently induced more of.  Line drive gives a connotation of "hard hit", but I don't think I've been giving up harder-hit balls, just balls that have the right trajectory to fall in for hits.  It could be something as simple as a tiny mechanical flaw that is limiting the sink on my pitches.  It could be a matter of poor location of pitches or poor pitch selection.  It could be that I have unconsciously been trying to get my BABIP so ridiculously high this blog post would be a bigger hit.  It could be a quick fix or something that will come with time and experience.  I am acutely aware of it and will find the solution if I die trying.  

I have tried a number of things so far and I had a quick glimpse of success that I'm holding on to.  Every athlete will talk about certain days where they are "in the zone" or "feeling it".  Those feelings come about in every day life as well.  Certain days I stand on the mound and if you ran the '27 Yankees up the plate I would mow them down.  Other days, it feels like the Dutch Little Leaguers--even minus the Curaçoans--would be impossible to get out.  For whatever reason, I have had a higher percentage of the latter than I've ever had in my career and look forward to the former coming to visit and stay for a while.  In Portland last week, I switched something minuscule in my arm-swing on my slider and everything seemed to click that day.  I came in with runners on in a 1-run game and got the last four outs in 14 pitches (12 for strikes) on three weak grounders and a soft pop-up.  It was the Beavers I was facing, but I had that glimpse of being in the zone and sending the Yankees down in order.  It's a euphoric feeling and I'm holding on to it.

I will be the first to admit I haven't thrown well in Triple-A.  I haven't been happy with how I've felt out on the mound and haven't been happy with the results.  It's been beyond frustrating at times, but it can also be a learning experience.  I have been lucky in my short submarining career to have had success at each of the levels at which I've played.  I am not deterred in my on-field goal to pitch successfully for a long time in the major leagues by these recent struggles; I plan to use it as an opportunity to better prepare me.


In the meantime I will hold on to that feeling from Portland and I will take solace in the fact that despite not having thrown well at a new level of competition and perhaps seemingly getting a bit unlucky ^[2], I still have an ERA under a million ^[3], which is perhaps a good sign.  

I take even more solace in the prospect of using this post as a means to now actively change things around like last time.

---

I have met a pretty eclectic array of people throughout the years playing baseball and this past week has been no exeption.  During BP in Portland I met Scott the Scoreboard operator (it's manual) and got to ask him how they climb all over behind teh scenes.  Then I got to meet Jonathan G. (who is famous for long comments on this blog)_ who went billions of inches out of his way to see us play.  Just today on my way to the bullpen I met a grandfather and grandson pair who (along with the dad) man a 13,000 acre farm in NE by themse

What do you think about the deal that Stephen Strasburg got without having pitched to a Major League hitter?  Do you think anyone is worth that kind of money coming out of college?
Chris H., Glendale, AZ

Chris, you ask a good question, but unfortunately you have put me in an awkward position a few times over.  First, as an "insider" and someone invested in being paid to play baseball, this question is a bit tough to answer honestly.  More importantly though, with a name like Chris H., you are undoubtedly going to raise questions about whether or not you are real or if I just made you up ^[1] .  Which makes it that much more awkward were I to make up a question which put me in an awkward position to answer.  Perhaps that's awkward enough people will realize I would never do that to myself.

As background, I'll lay out all the facts I know on the subject: this guy has never thrown in a Major League game and he just got paid $15,100,000 ^[2].  That's it.  I haven't seen Strasburg throw, so keep that in mind as I answer this.  I don't know his stats all that well either.  And at the time of writing this, I currently don't have Internet access at the hotel, thanks La Keentah ^[3], so I am unable to do a whole lot of research on him.  Or is it Him?  Either way, I will do what I can to answer honestly.  I will mostly think out loud and hope my thoughts will be of interest and perhaps lead to new insights on your part.

Now that I'm done with my disclaimers, I will go on to answer your question.



What do you think about the deal?

I think it's insane.  Before you start nodding your head and think, "There, see!  Even the players think it's ridiculous..." keep reading.

I do think it's insane, I do think it's way too much money upfront for someone coming out of college.  I also am, of course, insanely jealous, but that's beside the point.  I know first-hand how difficult it is to make it to the big leagues and how difficult the grind of a daily professional baseball schedule is.  The difficulties reach well beyond the batter 60-feet 6-inches away.  Both on and off the field, being a successful professional is more than velocity and pitch location.  I think back to my team in 2006 which was full of recent draftees and only a select few of us are still in the game.  The attrition in this profession is worse than Freshman Organic Chemistry.  As I said before, I don't know much about Strasburg, but there are a lot of variables to him being a success.


What I do know about him is he has incredible "stuff".  I have heard he throws ridiculously hard and locates and has great off speed pitches.  He isn't just a hard thrower who an organization could plan on teaching how to pitch.  He already knows how to pitch and does so as well, now, as many major league pitchers.  He is polished and a can't miss prospect.  He's potentially a major league caliber pitcher right now.  A "no brainer".

Well, there have been "no brainers" and can't-miss guys before, and in the past some of them have missed (maybe because they had no brains).  I don't want to put out a list of biggest busts because that doesn't seem fun and I'm sure other people have done it plenty of times over in the past, but suffice it to say, there have been a lot of highly touted players ready to "step in to the majors right now" that haven't panned out.  One of the most prevalent indicators of how cool a game baseball is is that it's so hard to evaluate which players will have success.  It shows baseball is more than a game of talent or ability.  In the NFL there are seven rounds of the draft.  And realistically, the difference makers are all taken within the first few rounds.  Yeah, Tom Brady this, Tom Brady that, but dimples aside, let me make my point.  The NHL has seven rounds as well.  In the NBA there are two rounds.  Two rounds.  How can baseball have 50 rounds and the other major sports have so few?  Is it that much harder to evaluate talent in baseball?  No.  But in baseball the correlation between talent and success is not nearly as certain as other sports.  It is not at all uncommon to know a basketball player is going to be an NBA star when he is 17 years old.  In baseball, it happens (thanks A-Rod for weakening my argument), but extremely rarely.

From what I've heard Strasburg's talent is undeniable.  The Nationals evaluated this, but paid him a seemingly ridiculous sum banking on his success.  For their sake let's hope the talent correlation with success holds more like it did for LeBron than it did for Matt Bush or Brien Taylor or Steve Chilcott (the notable #1's who didn't even make the Majors).



Do you think anyone is worth that kind of money coming out of college?

Yes, I do.

Wait, you just said all this stuff about how it was insane to give him that much money and how he could be a terrible investment.  How can you turn around and answer "Yes" to this second question?

There are a few approaches I could take here, and in my opinion (which is the only opinion expressed ^[4] on my blog), they all point to the answer "Yes".  As crazy as it sounds, I think Strasburg very well may be worth that kind of money.

If you are a baseball stat geek and in your mind "WAR" first and foremost means "Wins above Replacement", this section of my answer is for you.  Sort of.  If you really want to get that in-depth with it, read stuff that's more interesting and much better thought-out other places like Rany Jazayerli did for Baseball Prospectus or this from hardballtimes.com.  If you want the Disco spin, I will give it quickly and hope even you non-stat-geeks can enjoy.  Wins Above Replacement (WAR) is a stat that indicates how many wins a player is worth above a Triple-A replacement at his position.  For example, it would attempt to answer the question how many extra games would the Yankees have won if A-Rod were healthy and in the lineup to start this year?  Granted it's a tough question to answer, but trust me, there is a ton that goes into these calculations.  And if you look on fangraphs.com at a sorted list of which pitchers this year have the highest WAR, it's a who's who of sorts, which should give credence to the calculations.  At the time of writing this, Lincecum is currently the top pitcher on the list with a WAR of 7.2  In other words, the Giants have won 7.2 more games this year than they would have if Lincecum hadn't started a game and a Triple-A pitcher was filling in for him instead.  I won't go into the math behind it here, but I will use the results in a quick, completely dumbed-down manner for even the non-statistician.

But first, I will throw another number out there for you.  The value of winning one game is worth approximately $4.5 million on the open market to a major league franchise (if you visited that fangraphs link, you'll see they've used approx. $4.5 million on the WAR table to come up with a dollar value).  Again, you ask me how that is calculated and I will tell you to dig around online to find it (I'll give you a hint, it's not as simple as Revenue / Wins), but it takes into account added ticket sales and concession sales and merchandise sales and TV revenue to spit out a number for how much a win is worth to a franchise.  Granted, getting a win on the last day of the season to finish 63-99 instead of 62-100 is not as valuable as the difference in finishing 90-72 vs 89-73 which may mean the difference in a playoff birth.  But again, people much smarter than me (yes there are a select few, and if they aren't, they disguise it behind hours of free time spent crunching numbers) created this value so lets use it.

Alright, now we are ready to go.  The Nationals will have made a made a good deal if, over the four years of his contract, Strasburg is 3.36 wins better than a replacement pitcher (at $4.5 million, 3.36 wins is worth $15.12 million).  That comes to .839 wins per year for four years.  Right now, the Nationals have 4 starting pitchers who have surpassed the .839 WAR threshold already this season: Jordan Zimmerman (1.9), John Lannan (1.2), Craig Stammen (0.9), and Ross Detwiler (0.9).  And there's still a quarter of the year to go.  If, in response to this question, I asked you if Strasburg had the chance to be the next Craig Stammen, would you have said yes?  You probably would have asked who Craig Stammen was and then said yes.

For the people who didn't run to their junior high math class with their binder already out of their backpack in excitement, here's some more down-to-earth reasoning.


I can think of two paths of reasoning from here.

Reasoning A:

You asked if anyone is worth it.  All signs point to Him being better than anyone ever at baseball, but lets just assume he isn't.  Is there anyone in the majors right now who played in college and is now worth more than $3.775 million per year?  That's a ton of money, yes.  But the market would certainly indicate there are plenty of guys in the majors right now who are worth more than $3.775 million per year.  So, if there's anyone who played in college and then has gone on to be worth over $3.775 million per year in the Majors, the answer to your question--it could be argued--is "yes".  Now, the Nationals have Strasburg for the next four years, not four years in his prime, so maybe that changes things.  But names like Longoria, Lincecum, Verlander, Price, et al could quickly help this case.  Even if he is worth nothing his first two years and then $5 million the third year and $10 the fourth, it was a good signing for the Nats.  I'm not prophesying he will be, that's not my job.  All I'm saying is:  it's possible.  Other, seemingly lesser mortals have been worth it.  Will Tim Lincecum be worth $15 million over his first four years to the Giants?  If you're struggling to answer this one, I'll give you a nudge.  Fangraphs says he's worth $32.5 million through the first ¾ of THIS YEAR so far (no, this doesn't discount anything Fangraphs has to say as being bloated, it's just he's that good).  Oh, and did I mention Lincecum came out of college?  It is entirely possible Strasburg won't be worth $15 million, but it's entirely possible he will (plus or minus that pesky "point one").


Reasoning B:

It always is important to look at things in perspective, and a number like $15.1 million is easy to take out of perspective, because, after all, it's insane.  I now make $1,050 per paycheck (before taxes) for ten paychecks a year.  That's $10,500 for the entire year (and it was much lower when I was in the lower levels).  How can I put $15.1 million into perspective?  How can--god forbid this is actually happening on my blog--Joe the Plumber put it into perspective?  It seems outrageous.  And at a glance it is.  But think about it a little more.

The price of things can be difficult to fairly assess.  Lets say you are debating buying something.  If its price is less than the value of the inconvenience of not purchasing the item, you should buy it.  I'll give you an example a friend of mine shared with me.  He had been mailed a contract to play baseball in France and had to sign it and mail it back to France.  He went to the post office worrying it would cost an arm and a leg.  After mailing it from the post office, he called me and asked how much I thought it cost.  I think I guessed $60 with a chuckle.  It was $1.89.  A dollar eighty nine!

Without the $1.89 option, my friend could have hopped on a plane or boat and deliver the contract himself.  Which, despite Southwest's "no hidden fees" policy, I doubt he could have done for less than $1.89.  Of course mailing it was more than cost-effective.  If the Nationals didn't sign Strasburg but instead wanted to sign a replacement pitcher, odds are they would have had to pay more than $3.775 million per year.  To get a number one starter in the major leagues can cost you easily over $10 million a year.  If you don't believe me, go here to check out some of the names you know and see what they make.

   This may be true, but Strasburg isn't ace caliber, he hasn't proved it yet.

OK, maybe they wanted a guy who throws 100mph with plus off-speed pitches.  Well that's gonna cost you, too.  Who else does that?  Verlander, maybe?  $3.675 million (and that's through arbitration, not free agency...and I'm willing to bet Justin has a pretty nice raise coming here shortly).

    Yeah but you said so yourself, it's not stuff, it's how effective a pitcher is.

Perhaps, but the Nationals are running a business and, though ideally winning is a large part of it, we are talking dollars and cents here (mostly dollars) and whether or not Strasburg is worth it.  If he doesn't add to wins and losses (though earlier arguments show he doesn't need to add to wins by that much to be worth it), he is a big name now and I'm sure the Nationals are hoping people will pay to come see him pitch.  A household-name starting pitcher in the majors will, again, easily run you over $10 million per year, which, again, is way more than $3.775.

When I told you about my friend having to "decide" between flying to France or mailing the contract for $1.89, it was a "no brainer", right?  He was saving thousands of dollars.  Using the same reasoning, the Nationals may be saving millions by going with Strasburg for $3.775 million per year.  That's a no brainer a thousand times over, right?


Another way to look at the value of mailing the contract to France would be from the postal carrier's perspective.  If it marginally cost them less than $1.89 to mail the envelope, then they are making a good deal by charging $1.89.  Assuming a long-standing company would not be in business if they consistently lost money, they must have a positive marginal revenue from charging $1.89.

Will the Nationals make money off Strasburg if they pay him $15.1 million?  Well, this isn't as easy a call as the $1.89 the postal carrier charged, but you'd have to assume there has been some thought that went into it.

Again, it has to be in perspective.  Does it make sense the Nationals will benefit on spending $15.1 million on a guy who's never faced a Major League hitter?  No.  For all the reasons listed above, there's a chance this will be a bust.  But does it make sense a hot dog and a beverage costs $12 at a major league park?  No.  Does it make sense tickets cost $50?  How about parking for $35?  What about jerseys for $100 and TV deals worth millions?  Those don't make sense either.  But what if the average fan spends $150 on a trip to a ballgame between parking, ticket costs, concessions, refreshments, souvenirs, and apparel?  What if, over the course of 324 home games over the next four years, an extra 400 fans come to see the Nationals play each of those games?  That doesn't seem outrageous, does it?  Only 400 fans isn't much.  Well, if we guess a fan spends $150 per game, some quick math shows 400 fans really is a lot: 400 x 324 x $150 = $19.44 million.

Sure, Strasburg will only pitch one out of every five of those games.  But if I had said 2,000 extra fans for each of his starts, I doubt you would have objected.  Maybe 400 fans come to get his autograph even if he doesn't start.  We aren't even including TV revenue which would perhaps increase for road games, too.  This is all speculation, but you can see why $15.1 million is no longer sounding so ridiculous.  Sure, he could pitch in one game and get hurt and never play again, it's all possible.  But maybe he becomes Lincecum and 5,000 extra fans come to each of his starts.  Maybe he leads them to the playoffs and the Nationals got a steal at $15.1 million.


The Nationals are paying pitchers Mike MacDougal and Scott Olsen $2.65 and $2.8 million respectively this year.  Nothing against those guys at all, I'm just a dude in Triple-A who throws 78, so I can't say anything, but the casual sports fan probably hasn't discussed their contracts over dinner.  The simple fact someone emailed me this question about Strasburg shows his popularity, which may make him worth an extra million per year more than MacDougal and Olsen to the Nats.


There are tons of factors here.  Yes, he could be a bust.  Yes, he could get hurt.  Yes, he could develop a crippling case of agoraphobia.  The $15.1 million is a risk.  The draft is risk vs reward at it's finest in the player development game.  At a glance, $15.1 million is an insane amount of money and seems like way too much.  But it is all relative.  Did it seem insane and unreasonable for the Nationals to hope Strasburg becomes at least the next ... oh .... what's that guy's name?  You forgot too?  Well, it's Stammen, but I think I've made my point.


If you wanted cruise control on your car and a mechanic tried to charge you $5,000 to install it, you'd say he's crazy and the cruise control is way over-priced.  If NASA wanted to put cruise control on the space shuttle, and that mechanic gave the same quote, the $5,000 would seem laughably beyond petty.

So, what do I think about the deal?  It's insane, it really is.  Put $8 million away and live off the half-a-million-dollar interest for the rest of your life without facing a single major league batter?  That's nuts.

Do I think anyone's worth it?  Paradoxically, yes.



What I'm trying to say is: It's all relative.




Except for Chris H.  I swear he's not [1].

---