Our weekly Q&A about the goings on in Major League Baseball. Join us at noon.

Yesterday, I suggested that the Nationals were making the right decision for Bryce Harper’s career by putting him in the outfield. The most popular response to that assertion was that the Nationals shouldn’t care about Bryce Harper’s career, only the first six years of club control that they are guaranteed under the CBA. I find this sentiment confusing, honestly, especially considering the crowd that it comes from.

10 or 15 years ago, one of the big arguments from the sabermetric community was that managers were abusing young pitchers, making them throw so many pitches at a young age that their arms would almost certainly fall off. People like Dusty Baker and Dallas Green were vilified for their handling of their pitching staffs, and baseball reacted to the criticism of short term thinking.

From 1990 to 1999, a pitcher was allowed to throw 151+ pitches in a game on 35 different occasions. From 2000 on, it has not happened once – Livan Herandez’s 150 pitch outing is the most any pitcher has thrown in the last decade. The sabermetric community saw what it perceived to be short-sighted thinking, publicized the issue, and the game reacted.

Now, however, it seems like the statistically inclined are on the other side of the fence. Rather than asking baseball teams to be good stewards of a player’s career, the popular refrain is to extract as much value from the first six years of a player’s career as possible with no regard for his long term future.

I find that strange. Putting aside the fact that most elite players re-sign with their original teams for years beyond their first six, making it an act of self-interest to preserve a player’s value beyond his initial term, I believe that teams have a responsibility to look out for the long term well being of players on their team, regardless of whether they’ll be lifetime members of the organization or not. If not just for ethical reasons, then for the good of the game.

I see very little difference from the argument about the first six years of service time compared to how college coaches have traditionally treated pitchers in their care. It is no secret that many universities have put extraordinary pressures on young arms in pursuit of league championships – most notably, the deicision to let Texas RHP Austin Wood throw 169 pitches last year out of the bullpen, after he threw 30 pitches in relief the day before.

There was outrage about that misuse of a young player, and rightfully so, but Augie Garrido’s reasoning is the same as those who argue that a team should only focus on a player’s first six years – why care about the value that he may produce for some other team at the expense of my own benefit?

It’s this kind of short-sighted thinking that has led many players to avoid college baseball, unfortunately. College baseball itself has been hurt by these short term decisions, and I’d argue that the same would be true if Major League teams adopted this “get mine and get out” philosophy. It’s good for baseball that Bryce Harper becomes a superstar who enjoys a long career, and anything that is good for baseball is also good for the Washington Nationals.

Mike Rizzo should be commended for taking a big picture view of the situation, and I am left to wonder why a community that used to fight for the proper treatment of players has now seemingly switched sides.

Tonight’s the night – after a couple of years of intense hype, Stephen Strasburg makes his Major League debut. On Stubhub, there’s a ticket to the game going for $575, despite the fact that the 27-31 Nationals are hosting the 23-34 Pirates. People want to see what the hype is all about, and whether this kid is as good as he’s been built up to be.

I expect him to pitch well. The Pirates aren’t a good baseball team, and Strasburg has legitimate top shelf stuff. As long as he can overcome nerves and throw strikes, he should be fine. My one piece of advice, however, will not to be read too much into tonight’s performance, no matter how well he does.

As a matter of reference, here are the 14 pitchers who have posted a Game Score of over 80 in their Major League Debut since 1980.

Steve Woodard: 91
Jimmy Jones: 90
Pedro Astacio: 87
Mark Brownson: 85
Jeff Pico: 85
Danny Cox: 84
Mike Remlinger: 82
Johnny Cueto: 81
Kirk Rueter: 81
Jason Jennings: 81
Jeff Russell: 81
Kevin Morton: 81
Chris Waters: 80
Bob Milacki: 80

That is not exactly a list of Hall Of Famers. In fact, it’s a less impressive list that the guys who have absolutely bombed in the big league debut. It’s a long list, so we won’t go through the whole thing, but here are a few of the names of pitchers who have posted a game score of 20 or below in their first game:

Steve Avery (9), Tom Glavine (13), Matt Garza (14), Jake Westbrook (15), Jon Garland (15), Jason Hammel (18), and Ervin Santana (20)

Those guys were all disasters in their first tastes of the big leagues, but have gone on to much bigger and better things. And that group blows the “announce their presence with authority” guys out of the water in terms of career value.

Strasburg may be fantastic tonight, or he may be terrible. It will be interesting to watch either way, but in the end, it won’t mean anything. It’s one start. It might be his big chance to make a good first impression, but if he falls on his face, he’ll be in good company.

Want to watch the 2010 MLB draft with a collection of smart people? Join us at 7 pm for a draft chat featuring our in house prospect guys Bryan Smith, Marc Hulet, and Erik Manning, as well as special guests Will Kimmey (in studio college baseball analyst for ESPN, formerly of Baseball America) and Jeff Sackmann (of collegesplits.com).

In approximately seven hours, the Washington Nationals will select Bryce Harper with the first overall pick in the 2010 draft. In a couple of months, they’ll sign Harper to a lucrative contract, and he’ll begin his professional career – most likely, as an outfielder.

A catcher by trade, the Nationals are said to be leaning towards moving Harper to the outfield on a full-time basis. As is usually the case when a premium prospect is moved down the defensive spectrum, the reaction from the sabermetric community that I have read has been mostly negative. It is quite common to read comments to the effect that Harper’s value is diminished as an outfielder, because his bat is so much more valuable behind the plate, where premium bats are a rare breed.

However, there’s a presumption in these statements that I don’t believe holds true – that Harper’s projected offensive value is a constant regardless of his defensive position. Put simply, that isn’t supported by years of history of Major League Baseball.

Catching is hard work. It takes a toll on the human body, wearing players down and requiring frequent days of rest. Knees and backs routinely decide to give out from the stress that crouching behind the plate puts on them. Even the players who avoid the disabled list have to deal with the fatigue that just comes with the job.

There’s a reason why no catcher in Major League history has eclipsed 10,000 career plate appearances. By comparison, 33 outfielders have racked up at least 10,000 plate appearances, with the leader (Carl Yastrzemski) almost reaching 14,000. It is simply a statement of fact that Harper would be expected to have a longer career in MLB as an outfielder than he would as a catcher. The quantity of time that he would be able to add value on the field is larger, even if the potential quality of that production is lower.

So, simply applying a position adjustment and claiming its a bad move to make Harper an outfielder doesn’t cut it. If we want to really know whether this move makes sense, we’d have to explore whether the increase expectation in playing time outweighs the decreased value from not having Harper’s bat at a position of low offensive output. Beyond that, we’d also have to determine the effect that playing catcher could have on stagnating Harper’s offensive growth.

94 catchers in Major League history have accumulated at least 3,000 plate appearances. You know how many have posted a career OPS over .900? One – Mike Piazza. Okay, fine, a career .900 OPS is a pretty high bar (63 players at other positions have done it, but it’s still a pretty impressive feat), so lets lower it to .800 – 11 catchers in Major League history have a career OPS over .800 (and at least 3,000 PA), but four of those are active and haven’t had their numbers suppressed by end of career decline yet. Another one of those, Mickey Tettleton, spent 20 percent of his major league career playing positions other than catcher.

Perhaps we’ve all been spoiled by the presence of Piazza, Joe Mauer, and Jorge Posada over the last 20 years, but in reality, there are just a handful of big league catchers in the history of the game who have been able to both endure a career behind the plate and wield an impact bat at the same time.

By all accounts, Harper’s bat has a chance to be extremely special. If he makes it to stardom, it will be his offense that carries him there, not his work behind the plate. Moving him to the outfield will not be a waste of his value any more than it was when the Blue Jays moved Carlos Delgado to first base, the Astros moved Craig Biggio to second base, or the Braves moved Dale Murphy to center field. Harper can be plenty valuable as a power hitting athletic outfielder, and he can play until he’s 40 out there.

While the Nationals will be criticized by some for forfeiting some potential value, in the long run, it will probably be in his best interests, and I don’t blame the team for making that decision now, rather than wasting years of development trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

It’s hard to play in New York and fly under the radar. Every performance is magnified, and the always on media machine beats every remotely interesting subject to death. So, while he’s played a lot of good of baseball over the last two years, perhaps the most impressive thing about Angel Pagan is how underrated he still appears to be.

Since the start of the 2008 season, Pagan has received 585 plate appearances, or just about one full season’s worth of playing time. In that time span, he’s posted a .355 wOBA and a +14.4 UZR while playing primarily in center field. That performance adds up to a total value of +4.9 wins, the sixth most of any center fielder in baseball during that time frame.

Pagan is the classic jack of all trades, master of none, and his skillset is routinely undervalued for its lack of any one outstanding trait. He hits for a good average, but not so good that he’s among the league leaders. He draws some walks, but isn’t an on base machine. He has gap power, but his slugging is mostly made up of doubles and triples, not the more flashy home runs. He runs decently, but isn’t a huge base stealer. He’s a good defender, but doesn’t make a lot of spectacular plays.

Pagan has no glaring strength (aside from his glovework, but the samples are still pretty small to judge whether he’s actually an elite defender), but neither does he have any weaknesses. He’s the National League’s version of David DeJesus – just a good quality player who never gets the recognition he deserves.

DeJesus, of course, has never been relegated to a reserve role behind Gary Matthews Jr. That experiment mercifully lasted less than a week before the Mets realized the error of their ways, but still, Pagan was so lightly thought of that he had to beat out Matthews for a job to begin with.

When Carlos Beltran returns, the Mets will have a decision to make. The answer is actually pretty easy – Jeff Francoeur goes to the bench, as he’s clearly the worst outfielder on the team. We’ll see if the Mets get it right this time, and recognize just what they have in Pagan – a quality outfielder who deserves to play everyday.

Cliff Lee spent the first month of the season on the disabled list, not making his season debut until April 30th. While most starting pitchers have already started 11 or 12 games this season, Lee has started just seven. And he still leads all American League pitchers in Wins Above Replacement.

211 batters faced, 4 walks. 71 percent of the pitches he has thrown have been strikes. 69 percent of the batters to step in against him have seen a first pitch strike. Since the start of the 2008 season, he’s walked just 1.4 batters per nine innings. No one in baseball has better command than Lee.

Unlike a lot of guys who pound the strike zone, Lee has swing and miss stuff. His fastball isn’t overpowering, but his change-up is devastating, his curveball is a knockout pitch, and everything is located perfectly. He lives in the strike zone, and yet, he’s still gotten a swinging strike on 8.9 percent of his pitches this year. He’s 9th in the American League in K/9, ahead of high powered strikeout machines Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez.

If his season ended today, it would be only the fourth time in major league history that a pitcher had posted a K/BB ratio over 12 in a season with at least 50 innings. Dennis Eckersley did it twice (1989 and 1990), while Mariano Rivera did it in 2008, but of course, they both pitched out of the bullpen.

Inspired by the ridiculous performance Lee has had so far this year, I set out to try and find the best stretch of seven starts, using walks and strikeouts as the criteria, by other pitchers in recent memory. Here’s the best two that I came up with:

Curt Schilling, May 3rd to June 3rd, 2002: 52 IP, 2 BB, 70 K
Pedro Martinez, August 8th to September 9th, 2000: 51 IP, 3 BB, 64 K

Not surprisingly, those are two of the best pitching seasons in the history of the game. Lee’s numbers from this seven start stretch don’t quite match up, but that he’s even in the discussion is a testament to how well he’s pitching. While he might not have the track record of Johan Santana or the fastball of C.C. Sabathia, it’s hard to argue that there’s a better left-handed pitcher alive than Cliff Lee right now.

After last night’s game in Detroit (and in Seattle, but that didn’t get as much press), I’d imagine the overwhelming majority of fans are now in favor of some sort of instant replay in Major League Baseball. The current four umpire setup isn’t sufficient to get the calls right often enough. MLB even admits this in the post-season, adding two additional umpires to help try to ensure greater accuracy.

So, the real question is how to practically implement it. I’m not a big fan of the NFL’s system, where the onus is on the coaching staff to challenge a call and then the official has to leave the field in order to look at a monitor. I don’t want Tony LaRussa throwing flags on the field, and then Jim Joyce wandering into a tunnel somewhere for a few minutes. There has to be a better way.

The best suggestion seems to be to just add a fifth umpire to each crew and station him in front of a bank of television monitors. He could communicate with the rest of the crew by earpiece, and would have the power to overturn the call on the field. For situations like last night’s game in Detroit, the fix would be remarkably easy and take less than 30 seconds. Joyce calls Donald safe, the replay ump simply informs him that he was conclusively out, and the crew chief changes the call.

It gets a bit stickier in other situations, however, and this is where it would take some good planning to figure out what to do. There are quite a few plays where the reaction of the players on the field about what to do is based on a call on the field by the umpire. If a ball is ruled foul, the runners stop and return to their base. So, it’s not as simple as simply ruling the ball fair, because then you would have to figure out where the runners would have gotten had the call initially been right. I’m not sure there’s a good fix for this, so I’d probably lean towards having the replay umpire not be involved with fair/foul calls.

The replay umpire would be most useful on safe/out calls and on home run reviews, so I’d start there. Just give them authority to make the call in those situations. We’ll figure out fair/foul and balls/strikes at a later date. For now, though, a fifth umpire taking advantage of the technology we have seems like a no-brainer.

2010 has already been an incredible season, especially in the perfect game department. There had only been 18 in the history of baseball, but now we have witnessed three of them – first by Dallas Braden, then by Roy Halladay, and finally, tonight, Armando Galarraga joined the club.

27 up, 27 down. It’s an exclusive club for a reason: it’s almost impossible to do. You never know what might happen. A lucky bounce here or there, a blown call by an umpire…

Okay, fine, the record books won’t let us pretend that the Travesty of Jim Joyce didn’t happen. The man blew a pretty easy call that cost Galarraga his spot in history. There’s simply no defending him. He screwed up, really badly, in the most important moment of his career.

He’s human. Humans make mistakes. And it’s why the strengths and weaknesses of one single man should never determine the outcome of such a play. There is no argument against instant replay. Any chance the purists had for a “sanctity of the game” argument just went out the window. Armando Galarraga threw a perfect game, but he won’t get credit for it because one umpire screwed up, when 30 seconds of watching a replay on a monitor would have allowed him to correct his call.

This is ridiculous. Replay. Now.

Until then, I suggest MLB invoke “the best interest of the game” and hold a joint press conference with Joyce where everyone involved admits that the call was wrong, and they simply overturn the call and officially credit Galarraga with a perfect game. I don’t care about precedent. This will never happen again. It’s the right thing to do.

Join us at noon for our weekly stroll through the land of baseball Q&A.