The First Six Years
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.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I don’t think having a player work as a catcher is equivalent at all to a pitcher throwing an excessive number of pitches. Maybe there would be a parallel if that catcher was treated like the Royals are treating Jason Kendall, or Tony LaRussa Yadier Molina (though to be honest, I don’t know if he has received more off days recently), but you NEED a catcher to play the game of baseball. You don’t need to have a pitcher throw 150+ pitches a game.
Agreed. There’s an entire spectrum of actions when it comes to extracting value. Moreover, part of the annoying thing about the high pitch counts was that in many cases the team wasn’t even helping themselves in the short term.
Yes perhaps we should ban the position of catcher.
Totally agree with this and a few other of the similar comments. Someone has to play catcher. Nobody “needs” to throw 150+ pitches etc…
I remember when this site would statistically analyze something instead of just shooting from the hip. A team has no obligation to a player having a long career, much as a player has no obligation to sign a team friendly deal keeping him with the only club he has ever known for pennies on the dollar.
not a very persuasive article.
The point was to put the fan back in fangraphs.
Great article.
So you would argue that are perceived as less talented players don’t deserve to have healthy knees or the chance at long careers as much as Harper does?
Maybe players who aren’t as good at hitting as Harper should stay in the position of catcher?
Plus, moving to RF allows Harper to get to the majors much faster, so maybe we’ll see him in 2012 instead of 2014…
And having Harper play the peak years of his career somewhere other than Washington helps the Nats how, again?
1) Every team needs a catcher. Every team does not need to make a pitcher throw 150+ pitches.
2) Given that SOMEBODY has to play catcher (and so, take extra strain on their body), one might argue that a team is more justified playing a highly-paid player there, since they at least are being well-compensated for the strain.
Oops, I see some people beat me to point #1 while I slowly composed my response.
I guess I don’t see the logic of this argument at all, although several people seem to disagree. Every team does not need to make a pitcher throw 150+ pitches. True. But extending that logic, every team also does not need to make a catcher squat for 9 innings 6 days a week. The ‘every team needs a catcher’ argument just doesn’t hold water.
Uh… what? Nobody said the Nats would be required to work Harper into the ground as a catcher – there’s no reason that he couldn’t be a 4/5 games a week guy who gets lifted in blowouts and suchnot. The 150+ outings are unnecessary because they’re excessive use of the pitcher. Having a catcher is still a requirement.
Kevin, it is also in the Nationals interest to play Harper ~162 games per year, instead of 120 or so games as a catcher. Which is more valuable, playing Harper at catcher for 120 games or playing him in the outfield for 160? The Nats seem to think a full season in the OF would yield more value 4/5ths of a season at catcher.
The discussion of 162 games at catcher vs. 162 games at RF vs. 120 games at catcher +42 games at RF or 1B seems like a question ripe for a real sabermetric analysis.
I understand the 150 games v. 120 games argument, even if I don’t think it bears out necessarily. I don’t understand the argument that “Catching = throwing 150 pitches.”
Grr… supposed to be nested down in reply to Will.
I think Dave’s point is more about the sentiment behind the belief, than the belief itself. It’s one thing to believe Bryce Harper should be kept at catcher because that’s where he offers the most value over the short and long term… It’s another thing entirely to believe the Nats shouldn’t give a damn about Harper’s long term health and his career.
Because that’s the same thing that college coaches who overwork young pitchers do and we villify them for that.
I think catchers are a little different from pitchers in that no one ever has to throw 150 pitches but someone’s got to catch. Is it appropriate to save Harper’s knees and have the catching wear and tear shorten someone else’s career instead? Or do we assume the ‘other guy’ is an AAAA or even league average type player who won’t have as long a career anyway because he’s less skilled, so won’t be as affected by years of catching? On one hand, it’s easy to root for the guy with the potential to put up huge numbers over a 20 year career but from an ethical point of view I don’t think he’s more valuable than whoever else might be donning the tools of ignorance. Plus the other guy probably doesn’t throw 95.
It just doesn’t seem as cut and dry to me as keeping pitcher use in check, maybe because you can relieve your starter after 100-110 pitches and (to the best of our knowledge) no one on the staff will be taking undue abuse.
Putting aside the fact that most elite players re-sign with their original teams for years beyond their first six
Not elite-level Scott Boras clients, though. Also, given that thought, should the Nats be rushing him to the majors? I think, realistically, they’re going to have him for something like six years and four months. Assuming they don’t suddenly become competitive in the next couple of seasons, I’d rather have him for his age 22-28 seasons instead of 19-25.
The Nationals could be competitive in a few years. Strasburg, Zimmerman, Harper is a pretty solid core, plus the Morgan and Willingham pickups show that Rizzo has some grasp of finding talent. And moving him to centerfield not only maximizes his long term value, but it also rushes him to the majors.
Another thing people aren’t considering is that center field is also a premium defensive position, and a slugging centerfielder is one of the most valuable assets in the game. It’s not like they are DHing him or anything
I think they’re talking about RF for him though, not CF.
The Nationals could be good in that time frame, I guess – maybe I’m just being overly pessimistic based on their history. Also, I meant to mention this initially, but there’s also discounting involved with getting him up earlier, especially if they’re going to be good.
Yeah, if it was CF, I think that people would be more open to that. But, it’s not. People are saying a corner spot, which reduces his value in the OF much more than if he were a CF – which he definitely isn’t, from all reports. Still not as much an impact as a C, though.
Exactly. I mean, we’re talking about a guy who completely gamed the system to get his first FA payday as early as possible. Whether he stays with the Nats beyond six years or not, they’ll be paying market rates for time beyond their guaranteed control.
I don’t think he really meant to be persuasive, I think he just wants to point out that the reaction to the Harper move has him confused and is pointing something out.
I have some more thoughts that I need to work on composing but I’ll throw them up later
A response so misguided one must hope Mr Cameron misinterpreted what was being said. Lack of regard for a player’s well-being had nothing to do with the clamoring to keep Harper behind the dish. Maximizing value != minimizing long term health. If it would be unsafe to keep Harper at C, that’s one thing. But it isn’t unsafe. The Nationals can get potentially elite hitting at the scarcest of positions. Harper’s well being has nothing to do with it.
I knew Mr Cameron was holier-than-thou before this, but I didn’t realize he would twist an argument to try to appear on a cross. An unfortunate column.
No. Catcher is linked to shorter careers, fewer plate appearances, and more injuries. Harper’s bat is good enough to be superstar level at any position. They are moving him to another premium defensive position that receives a high positional adjustment, in order to maximize the number of PA’s he will receive over the course of his career, by reaching the majors quickly, prolonging his career, and reducing the potential for injury. Mauer derived a lot of his pre-MLB career value from hitting well as a catcher, although now he has proven that his bat plays regardless. Harper draws his value from his bat and athleticism. He could have been the number 1 pick if he had never squatted behind the plate.
As mentioned above, a RF or LF is decidedly NOT a premium defensive position. The point is, to have a bat like Harper’s at C is a decided advantage over having that bat anywhere else. It’s nice to have in the lineup regardless, but it’s much easier for Washington to find a bat to play LF/RF than C.
They’re moving him to right.
He’s even more valuable behind the dish than catching popups.
Yep, and the Nationals should weigh those concerns with the massive loss in value from moving Harper off catcher.
This is a ridiculous argument. The point of sabermetrics is not “to fight for the proper treatment of players.” It’s to determine what elements of player performance lead to success for the team. If it has any social agenda at all, it is merely to ensure that these factors are properly weighed in compensation decisions.
The pitch count comparison is even more ridiculous. Picthers who are abused don’t fall apart five or ten years from now–they can fall apart immediately (cf. Gil Meche). It’s short term thinking that can hurt their CURRENT club to abuse their arms.
This site is one of the primary resources pushing a highly quantitative analytical approach that directly ties players to their marginal value to clubs and the economic returns thus created. It’s absurd for you to be part of that discussion then turn around and cry about the ethics of people taking those calculations to their ultimate conclusion.
So what? The point of economics may be to figure out how markets work most efficiently: that doesn’t mean that we can’t use economic wisdom to make everyone’s life better. Sabermetrics may be about run scoring and monetary value, but that doesn’t forbid sabermetricians from taking off their sword belts and reminding us that baseball players are people and therefore deserve a certain basic level of treatment.
If what you’ve just said is right, then sabermetricians should be neutral on whether baseball breaking the color barrier.
Ethical arguments are independent of sabermatric arguments. Cameron is somehow suggesting that sabermetrics should somehow lead you to an ethical conclusion and is disturbed that people using the approach come up with an ethical conclusion he doesn’t like. To which I reply:
Boo Freaking Hoo.
Sabermetrics is a tool to quantify performance, nothing more and nothing less. You want to make an ethical argument, go post on Murry Chase’s homepage.
OMG, poor Harper. He may have to play catcher in the major leagues instead of right field. I thought it was written in the Bill of Rights that no man should be forced to play a slightly more risky position in an attempt to get more value out of him.
This whole thing is ridiculous. The Nationals have no obligation to preserver Harper’s career, only to get as much value as they can out of him.
If what is important is the interest of the game then many sabermetric arguments are invalid. Its more entertaining to watch Adam Dunn hit homeruns and play terrible defense than it is to watch Angel Pagan put up 4WAR mostly by being an above average fielder.
not to fans who watch and appreciate defense. Flick on a Mariner’s game and watch Death to Flying Things. Remember, Webgems are the highlight of Baseball Tonight
Quick aside, how’s that team doing?
The smartest fans in baseball!
Teams and individual managers that earn the reputation of putting their interests first at the expense of players will be hurt in the long run. Talent will shy away from those situations. It happens in the corporate world. It can happen in the sports world as well.
That being said, I don’t think that keeping Harper as a catcher is abusing his career. However, it seems to me that Harper might want to have a long conversation with the Washington front office about this issue before signing on the dotted line.
If someone can apprise me of how ad hominem pronouncements can reasonably impact upon the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of an argument, I will cautiously take it under advisement.
Until such a time, perhaps we may all agree that speculating about the author’s putative Christ complex is at best not germane and at worst an annoying distraction.
You are the type of person who writes college textbooks. In other words, you have found an incredibly smart sounding way to say absolutely nothing.
Okay, how about this:
I found Blah’s comments biased and the insult to Cameron gratuitous.
My comment was meant to be mildly humorous. I find that direct insults just make people mad.
Oh and by the way, “you are the type of person who writes college textbooks” is also an ad hominem. Why speculate on the type of person I may or may not be when you can just demonstrate how “absolutely nothing” my statement is. . . . If you can . . .
I think the explosion of salaries between 1990 and today had a lot more to do with lower pitch counts than the saber community. Talk about a grandiose sense of self.
What? No one is talking about this at all
Except, you know, the original post, which solely credits righteous seamheads for the death of 151-pitch starts.
There is a difference between resigning for years past the original 6, and still being around during the later years of their career. They might lock him up for a couple of years past that 6 with a long term deal, but the chances that the Nats will have to deal with Harper in his early 30’s is pretty slim.
And your argument leads to the logical conclusion that no players with the potential for a long, productive career should play catcher. That the only players teams should use at catcher are disposable guys who don’t offer much at the plate.
You’d think Boras would have learned from Mauer’s contract. I don’t think Mauer gets $184M if he’s been in LF his whole career. As a corner OF, Harper’s got much less margin for error as a hitter if he wants to be an elite player making huge money when he hits free agency. If he’s just Josh Hamilton with the stick, that ain’t going to cut it.
Harper’s potential offense > Mauer’s offense (this is a tribute to Harper’s potential, not in any way a knock on Mauer). Mauer’s bat would be solidly above average in the OF, and his defense would probably suffer. Harper athleticism could allow him to stick as a quality center fielder (which is about as close the scarcity of catcher’s as the rest of the diamond is gonna come) and his bat plays anywhere. The margin of error shrinks, but then, so does his chance of injury, plus it gets him to FA faster. Talk to any player who is bought out of arbitration and FA, security (in Harper’s case, reduced injury risk) is often traded for salary
Ban the position of catcher! Seriously, someone has to play it. Why force lesser talents and people name Molina to do the dirty work?
I can quickly say why it happened.
In the 90’s, we had generalities. We had strikeouts = good for pitchers, high pitch counts = bad for pitchers. We didn’t have WAR, WARP, VORP, etc. We focused on the proper way to use players, and the proper players to be used.
Now? We focus on value. We don’t care about individual talents, we care about the big picture of a player. Sometimes, we miss the little thing.
Losing 0.5 WAR a year from an MVP-potential player is not a big deal. Especially if it buys him an extra 3000 PA in his career.
Except the difference between right field and catcher is more like 2 WAR…
Over 162 games, and assuming equal levels of defense against the positional mean as well as equivalent offense production. I think he’s more valuable behind the plate, but it’s not as simple as subtracting the positional adjustments.
If I were the GM of the Nats right now, I’d definitely be worried about using him at catcher. He’s going to be putting more innings on those knees than most 17 year olds and against better competition. It’s not to say that he can’t do it though. You can’t always play so cautiously. You could also play him at catcher to start off his career and take it from there. It’s not going to be that hard for him to learn a corner outfield position.
As far as the argument that was mentioned earlier about Joe Mauer’s contract and how it was larger because he’s a catcher… there’s 2 catchers in the top 25 contracts of all-time with Mike Piazza at #23. Bryce’s bat is what will get him paid.
There’s a difference in kind in your comparison, Dave. Because those first six years, and the incentives they create, were agreed to by the players through collective bargaining, they’ve implicitly given their permission for the teams to use those first six year to the best of their advantage.
In college, the players don’t have any say over how they’re used, and there is no agreed-upon set of rules, so only then do we fall back on what we think is right.
But in MLB, what’s “right” is a nonsensical concept, as what’s acceptable has been formally defined through the CBA.
If players weren’t so greedy and immediately bolted for some stratospheric payday on a big market club as soon as they hit FA, maybe small-mid market teams would care more about preserving their homegrown talent. As it stands, why care about the longevity of your star just so he can beat you in another uniform a few years down the line? I’m not say that that’s the way *I* feel but I can easily understand if small-market teams felt this way.
(A) I hope you’re not begrudging players from jumping at the big payday, just as we all would, and (B) all teams (large and small market) can extract immense value from players in their first six (team-controlled) seasons, so you can’t fault a player from wanting to maximize his payday after the team has maximized its value from him. Don’t get mad at someone reaching for “above market” if they were paid “below market” for years…
Although I guess it’s easier just to shake fists at them greedy players and say they should give money to widows, orphans, and school teachers…
Wait a sec, Cameron’s post was about how teams have some mythical ethical obligation to look out for the entire career of their draftees even if it means sacrificing their value to the team. All Jonathan was pointing out is that you cannot seriously argue that position and at the same time argue that players have the absolute right to get the biggest payday possible.
As a Pirates fan, I don’t give a flying F what happens to Pedro Alvarez starting in (presumably) 2017. Why on earth should I? I don’t root for Albert Pujols or Tim Lincecum either (even as I might, as a baseball fan, appreciate their talents on an abstract, do what you like when you play the Cubs, level).
Perhaps SABR members should start fighting against MiL coaches who are mean, since it hurts the feelings of baseball players.
Why not go with a compromise for his first year or 2 in the minors – say, a 60/40 split between RF/C? Provides the flexibility to see how he develops at each position and lessens wear & tear on him without committing one way or the other? Does anyone think this would significantly impact his defensive development?
Yeah, Bryce’s bat will get him paid. But the chances that he will hit well enough in the majors to earn the kind of money Mauer got if he’s a corner OF are slim. We’re not talking about a Strasburg type polished product here. It’s not like we’re debating whether a 25-year old Mike Piazza should be moved off catcher to extend his productive career.
But it’s all a moot point anyway, as playing him at catcher isn’t an option for Washington.
It’s absolutely an option – merely one they’ve apparently chosen to ignore.
“…most elite players re-sign with their original teams for years beyond their first six…”
Does this include elite players that have Scott Boras as an agent?
Sure, as long as “most”=0%
I think the sabermetric community demonstrated that a pitcher’s consecutive starts suffer after they had thrown 140 pitches in a game. The change to the “100 pitch limit” was more of a result of input from James Andrews and the rise of Tommy John surgery in young pitchers.
As for Bryce Harper … in this situation, much of the discussion has been about something that, to me, doesn;t seem like a possibility … Harper playing Catcher.
From what I know, Harper was drafted as an outfielder. Not drafted as a catcher and moved to outfield by Washington. I was under the imprssion that Harper as an outfielder was a decision made by player and agent. If Harper wanted to play catcher, I would imagine he’d be catching for Washington. We can go on and on about whether he should or should not play catcher, but if player/agent of removed that option, then it’s just wasted breath to talk about it.
This reminds me of Craig Biggio, who played C his first 4 seasons, and was likely more valuable (in terms of WAR) at that position than at 2B (where he was also very valuable). Biggio was moved to a “less demanding” position as were other young catching prospects (Todd Zeile for example). Wether it’s accurate or not, the thinking has seemingly been if a player can hit, you extend his endurance and career by moving him, and letting a weaker hitting player catch.
We do know that teams with very good catchers, especially those that can hit well, have a considerable advantage over the teams that do not. So, there are “good points” on both sides of the debate. However, I keep coming back to whether Harper/Boras is willing to have catching be an option.
I’d rather see him play 2B than RF if he is able. Chase Utley is far more valuable to his team at 2B than he would be in RF. Harper’s bat in CF (ala Jim Edmonds) would be far more valuable than RF, if he is able to play the position well (Edmonds) or reasonably well (Van Slyke).
Still, I think we’re also dealing with a situation where the player/agent has more input than they should have.
Yeah this is pretty ridiculous. Being okay with moving him to RF is fine, but ethics ain’t got one thing to do with it. This is terribly misguided.
Some of the first-6-years commenters in the original thread seemed to have an attitude that would excuse (applaud?) knowingly shortening a player’s career if such treatment would be accompanied by greater value during the club’s years of control. I think that those who believe the sabermetric community condones that attitude are mistaken. There is a difference between saying that player X, though great in the past, won’t be as valuable *going forward* as lesser-known player Y and shouldn’t be paid for past performance when player Y is equally deserving of a chance, and saying that a team should hasten player X’s decline as long as his contract will be up before he falls apart. Age and accident are natural, and young players will replace older players, but abusing a young man for a few extra wins when he could otherwise have contributed more later in his career, even if it would be for someone else, damages the game and undermines our love of it and our reasons for watching.
This is not a comment on whether Harper should catch or play RF. It’s a reaction to a repugnant attitude that some commenters allowed to slip into their thought process. I think Dave’s target in this latest column is that attitude (condoning deliberate harm or indifference to the likelihood of harm) rather than those who simply think Harper would be more productive as a catcher.
By that standard, then, no one catches. Someone’s got to do the job and someone’s career thus gets shortened. Why does Harper have some ethical right to have that be another man in his place? Because it might cheat him out of his third or fourth hundred million when he is 35?
Maybe the fifth umpire could do all the catching.
I’m just saying that the reason why Harper should catch shouldn’t be “we don’t care what happens to him in year 7”. What if organizations pushed steroids on the theory that any negative long-term effect would come after the end of the contract? More philosophically, what if we removed catchers’ protective gear or all batting helmets because we found injuries entertaining? We’re still talking about people, and in this case it’s a seventeen-year-old kid.
I like your question, though. I think it’s less about rights and more about versatility. The guy who gets stuck catching is usually the one whose offense doesn’t play anywhere else or whose defense clearly exceeds what anyone else could do in his position. It looks as though another young man is paying the price for protecting Harper, but maybe that’s the only way he gets to play. Talent is still one’s ticket to the show.
In showing a complete disregard for policing steroids Bud Selig and the other owners did in essence push them. That is the reason a lot of baseball traditionalists hate Selig. The owners wanted the increase in homeruns because they knew it would have a direct effect on revenues.
“In showing a complete disregard for policing steroids Bud Selig and the other owners did in essence push them.”
Yeah, those owners sure held the PA to the wall insisting on no steroid testing. I hope the brave proletariat, I’m sorry players, are able to get rigorous testing in the next CBA.
Is it possible that this is just a very unique situation. Typically, players will do whatever it takes to make it to the big leagues. For many players, donning the catcher’s gear – despite the toll it takes on the body – gives them the best chance to “make it.” For them, it is in their best interest to maximize the possibility to earn the big payday and to make a name for themselves. In most cases, their skills will deteriorate before their bodies, meaning that the most value they can provide is as a catcher for as long as they’re good enough to stick.
Harper’s a different animal altogether. No one seems to question if he’ll be able to provide adequate value to make it big. If it is a foregone conclusion that he’ll be a big star, he’s got the leverage to push for a position switch in the interest of extending his playing career.
I’d argue that it is up to the player to look out for his career, while the team is looking out for what is best for the team. We rarely laud agents for the work they do – preferring to approve of or belittle the moves made by the teams – but in this case, it is hard not to give Scott Boras major kudos. He’s taking advantage of the leverage that’s there, and he’s pushing for the move that will provide the maximum long-term value for his client. The Nats seem to be OK with letting him do it. I don’t think that’s good for them, but I think it is good for baseball.
“He’s got the leverage to push for a position switch in the interest of extending his playing career.”
I don’t disagree with this–and if it is of value to him then he can negotiate it as part of his signing deal. But I’d expect that the reduction in value to the Nats in that case would be reflected by a reduction in the final number on the contract.
It is not a matter of ethics. You cannot have a system where the players have no ethical obligations while the owners somehow have to uphold some higher standard “for the good of baseball.”
Players want “for the good of baseball” to somehow be important? Let them support a financing system that doesn’t screw 2/3rds of the teams in the league.
Having Bryce Harper play anywhere is valuable for the Nats.
If Strasburg said he wanted to be the closer, that too would benefit the Nats … Though it might affect the money they gave him … Or not.
I’m not real thrilled at the treatment many players get in NCAA or MiLB, but the players are getting something out of it as well … And well, most players/pitchers are willing to do anything to win and help the team and sometimes need protected from themselves (Chase Utley not disclosing injuries, for example).
Harper has already said that one of his goals is to play for the Yankees one day. Do you really think that he’s going to sign long-term with the Nats?
The difference is it is a requirement that someone on the team catch while it is not a requirement to have a single pitcher throw 160 pitches in a game. Apples to oranges
You know nothing about Augie or college baseball. Please don’t talk on the subject unless you played or follow the sport.
Thanks,
Rick
“If you offered me anything in the world, I don’t think I would trade it for the experience of playing in that game. It was that meaningful,” said former Texas pitcher Austin Wood, who threw 169 pitches in 13 innings of relief that night, including 121/3 innings without giving up a hit.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/one-year-later-horns-and-eagles-remember-historic-724079.html?srcTrk=RTR_661354
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend of mine Monday night. He played baseball collegiately, whereas I switched to different sports in grade school. As a braves fan, he said that he would take Heyward/Hanson over Strasburg/Harper. His sole reasoning? That Heyward was proven, and he didn’t know what Harper would be able to do with wooden bats.
When I pointed out that Harper in fact played all season with a wooden bat, he then changed his line of argument. After discussing various stats and backing him in a corner, he pulled out his trump card “You can’t argue baseball with you bc you didn’t spend your entire life playing!! There’s so much that can’t be put into a stat and you need to play to understand!!”
This line of reasoning is idioti at best, and its the same as yours Rick. If active participation is a pre-requisite of discussion, then I, and you, would not be able to discuss 95% of the things we do.
Never been an actor? Can’t critique a movie!
Never served food? better not complain about your waiter mixing up your simple order!
Never written/been published? Best to not bad mouth an internet write! (Hey look, that ones ironic huh?).
“unless you played OR follow the sport”
I believe Rick’s point was that Dave has done neither. Sort of like not being able to critique an actor as you only read a few movie blogs in June.
P.S. Rick Monday was rumored to have had sex with Augie’s wife back in the day. More proof you have no clue as to what “Rick” was talking about.
Stick to internet writes! (Ha!)
Apologies for not reading through all of the comments (I did Ctrl-F), but I feel like the move offers value in not having to deal with perceived character issues. Being a catcher probably has a mental burden of handling a staff and that would be a big adjustment for Harper. It’s a lot easier to stick him out in right. He won’t have to coddle struggling pitchers and whatever it is that catchers do.
I know there’s studies that say catchers have no effect on pitcher ERA, but realize there’s selection bias: guys who aren’t cut out to catch don’t do so at the major league level.
Actually, the studies have not found there is an effect, which is not the same as saying the studies have found there to be no effect.
In this community, we love to “guarantee” things. Then, we move on to argue with each other assuming that guarantee.
Despite what everyone on this site says, there is no guarantee that Bryce Harper will be a major league baseball player.
It’s easy to argue that Harper should be moved to OF if you dismiss any potential of him not making it to the show. However, it would be much more accurate to have this same argument without the assumption that he’ll hit like ARod.
Do you regret moving him away from catcher if, in two years, his bat is not quite as “elite” as you thought?
Makes for a more interesting, and accurate, debate.
But, I digress. I will now go back to assuming that “can’t miss” prospects never bust.
You’re right; move the dude to RF.
To be fair, unless his legs get cut off, he’ll at least play in the MLB, but you make a valid point about whether or not he’ll be any good.
The difference, of course, is that Wood is not compensated for his abuse at Texas, while Mr. Harper would be compensated quite nicely for catching in Washington.
Oh my lord. The talking heads are on ESPN debating whether or not it was wise to let Stasburg throw 95 pitches when he was only supposed to throw 90.
Pitch counts are worthless without context. If I have a horse like Felix Hernandez and he’s at 120 pitches but only 20 of them were from the stretch I let him throw 10-15 more. If he is at 100 pitches but half were from the stretch I probably take him out. Also weather should play a factor in the pitch count as should the number of times warming up and whether or not he had any long breaks during offensive rallies. Teams now don’t even let the starters throw an extra 10-15 pitches when the are scheduled for an extra day off between starts.
But I’m glad Dave Cameron and his friends were out there fighting the good fight for strict 100 pitch counts.
Here is a practical idea that I hope the saber crowd takes up so it will quickly be adopted by mlb teams. Throwing from a windup in appropriate times with guys on base. If the bases are loaded use a windup. If home is the only base available to steal use a windup. If Matt Stairs or another similarly slow player is the guy on base, use a windup. Pitching from the stretch causes far more injuries than high pitch counts do in modern times, so someone should get on this right away. I’ll be expecting to see the changes start within a couple years, or sooner.
Except that “Dave Cameron and his friends” were never “out there fighting the good fight for strict 100 pitch counts.” There’s a huge difference between responsibly managing pitch counts and setting a strict limit.
Dave,
I think you missed the point, at least about my comment, which was in line with the majority you describe in this article (and first!). In your earlier article you talked about Bryce Harper’s “value.” You didn’t talk about what was good for the game or the hypothetical benefit the Nationals derive from doing something good for their players or the game. It was all about value. From strictly a value perspective, the Nationals will pay for Harper’s first three years and get a discount on years 4-6 when they sign him. After that, they can get Harper for market value; meaning the Nationals don’t gain any “value” after year 6, whatever happens. Therefore in strict “value” terms the Nationals would want to maximize the first six years of Harper’s career. There may be great reasons for the Nationals not to maximize Harper’s “value” in that sense. But that does not mean that the criticism of your earlier post on this point was incorrect.
“Losing 0.5 WAR a year from an MVP-potential player is not a big deal. Especially if it buys him an extra 3000 PA in his career.”
Even if it is ONLY .5 WAR per year lost, (the difference between Catcher and Right Field is probably more) and it would extend his career by 3000 PA, it is NOT IN THE NATIONALS BEST INTEREST to move him from catcher. The comment earlier about most players resigning with the team that drafted them is absolutely ridiculous when you consider he has Boras as his agent. MVP- caliber (you used the word potential, I hope you don’t mind me using the word caliber) players who have Boras as their agent do NOT stick with the Nationals after 6 years. While it might be in BRYCE HARPER’S BEST INTEREST to play at RF, the Nationals are not benefited one bit. I think its safe to say that the first 6 years of team control are the only ones that matter to the Nationals.
Also, when the original person said, if not for ethical reasons do it, then for the love of the game, I do not think a single executive is going to be saying, “I don’t have any scruples about shortening his career for the good of the team, but man, baseball is a better game with Harper in it, even on a different team that will be opposing me in the future, so I really shouldn’t do it”. I hope I’m not the only person who realizes how ridiculous that sounds. Ethical reasons making the decision, meh… I really don’t see it as ethically wrong to play an elite player at catcher regularly as opposed to a non-elite player. There is nothing stopping him from playing other positions when he doesn’t catch if he catches 120 ish games a year.
In short, the original post even bothering to put in the part about elite players resigning with the team that drafted them is obviously bunk in this situation, as anyone who thinks Harper will resign with the Nationals if he is an MVP-caliber player after his 6 years are up is a person I am willing to bet money is wrong. That leaves us with the arguments of ethical reasons, which is only even half decent if it assumes Harper will catch every game, when he COULD play games at other positions when not catching, and for the love of the game, which says we shouldn’t play Harper at catcher at all because his bat is special and we want the Yankees, (or some other team willing to spend the LARGE money to sign him) to have him longer because its good for the game for him to play longer on another team, even if it hurts us. Sorry, those arguments seem silly to me.
Many of you are missing the point. He’s not saying playing catcher = throwing 150 pitches. He’s not saying he’d feel sorry for Harper if he had to play catcher. He’s disturbed by the attitude of people’s comments. People were saying that the Nats shouldn’t care about Harper’s career. Essentially, use him up, throw him away. You can talk about maximizing value and the increased production you’d get over a replacement level catcher as opposed to a replacement level right fielder all you want, but as a decent human being you shouldn’t take the attitude of “who cares about the person, just focus on what you can get out of the next 6 years.” And as a baseball fan, you should be happy that we can look back on the careers of Mays and Ruth and Aaron and other baseball greats and enjoy the records they broke and set, and if the Nationals think Harper could some day be included in that trio if he plays long enough, we should be glad they are willing to risk losing a little value to let us enjoy another.
I’d love to see answers to the following questions:
1) What would maximize career WAR for Harper – playing catcher or playing RF – assuming his defense is league-average as a catcher and the translated OF defense for a league-average catcher?
2) How much does this change based on his defensive ability? I suspect most catchers who are switched to another position are average to below average fielders.
3) Does Bryce Harper have to pay royalties to Ultimate Warrior for the way he wears eye black?
A couple of questions:
1. Are pitchers being injured less frequently now than they were in the 1990s? Just curious – I haven’t seen any studies on that issue.
2. In the discussion of catcher v. outfield… It seems to me that other things must be considered in total value. Like:
– Is it easier to find an above average outfielder than an above average catcher on the FA market or in the draft? If so, what is one likely to cost?
– What will the likely budget of the team be? Finding offensively talented outfielders might be easier, but most teams aren’t paying their catcher $15 million per year. Is it better to spend a huge % of your budget on a catcher or an outfielder? Does it matter? Is replacement level production cheaper in one position vs the other?
Regarding DC’s piece. I have to agree with the criticism, for the most part. It seems like a lazy way out of a complex issue. Dave is disappointed in the saber community – well, it seems they are disappointed with him for moralizing like a old school, hacky sportswriter.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
No response from Mr. Cameron?
Your site is in my favorites now. I really like reading through it. Thanks.