3 proposed rule changes for baseball

Buster Olney published nine proposed rule changes for baseball today.  They’re pretty much all bad, running the gamut from sacrilegious (7 inning games) to confusing (using real pitchers in the home run derby, which would pretty much remove home runs from the event).

Rather than complain about Olney’s ill-conceived project, which was done with the input of Mike and Mike listeners (which explains everything), I’m giving a list of three things I’d do if I was Commissioner of Baseball.

First, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with baseball.  The only thing wrong with baseball is that when you watch a game, you often have to wait too long to actually watch baseball.  There are too many delays in the modern game.  Late-game pitching changes and replay reviews are the biggest culprits.  Therefore, all my changes are designed to move the game along.

1. Limit Replay Reviews to 30 seconds.  Listen, I hate replay.  I think it’s unnecessary.  But I’m realistic enough to realize it’s here to stay because the chance of an umpire missing a game-changing call scares people into accepting it.  So here’s my solution: 30 second replays.  That’s it.  If the call isn’t obviously wrong–and it should be immediately apparent within 30 seconds that it is–keep the game moving. Replay isn’t there to forensically dissect every play  like the Zapruder film.  It’s there to fix an obvious mistake the umpire didn’t see.  Here’s a baseline: when relievers feel obligated to throw warm-up pitches during replay reviews, replay reviews are too long.

2. Eliminate Warm-up Pitches for Mid-inning Pitching Changes.  You’ve just been throwing in the bullpen for 10 minutes.  You don’t need to warm-up again when you get to the mound.  You’re already warm.  Now, I realize relievers use the warm-up pitches to acquaint themselves with a new mound surface.  Too bad.  Your uncertainty about throwing off a new rubber surface shouldn’t make me sit around for 5 extra minutes in the DC humidity.

3.  All Relievers Must Record One Out.  Mid-inning pitching changes are the biggest time drag on baseball.  Watching teams use three different relievers on three different batters is a soul-crushing experience for the fan.  Here’s the compromise: use as many relievers as you want, but if they can’t get an out, you’re stuck with them.  This rule incentivizes managers to give relievers full innings to work so they’re not stuck with a highly unfavorable matchup when their LOOGY or ROOGY reliever doesn’t retire the first hitter.  In addition to cutting down on idle time watching relievers run in from the bullpen, this rule change increases the likelihood of more offense and more late-inning comebacks, which are both fun. It’ll be harder for teams to neutralize hitters like Bryce Harper since they can’t play “match-up” baseball late in games.

The Matt Harvey-Stephen Strasburg Tommy John Debate

There is no shortage of narratives this season.  Last week, Jordan Zimmermann returned to Nats Park on the night Max Scherzer–Zimmermann’s de facto “replacement”–tied a major league record striking out 20 hitters.  Last night provided an even juicier narrative–Stephen Strasburg shutting down the Mets (pun intended) on the same night Matt Harvey’s season hit a low point, giving up 9 runs before being pulled in the 3rd inning to boos.

Strasburg and Harvey, of course, are on opposing ends of the Tommy John spectrum.  Their teams facing identical situations, approached UCL surgery recoveries in completely opposite ways.  The Nats shut down Strasburg for the season in September even though the team was likely to make the playoffs.  The Mets continued putting Harvey on the mound, all the way through the World Series.

People are locked into their positions on this.  Debating Strasburg’s shutdown is likely to have the same effect as debating gun control at an NRA rally or abortion with people holding signs outside the Supreme Court.  The opponents of Rizzo’s Strasburg plan are locked in.  They think it was foolhardy to shut down a “healthy”* pitcher when elbows are such an inexact science.  Or worse, they realize it’s a risk but don’t care, thinking a playoff run is worth the potential cost of blowing out a pitching arm worth $100 million ($175 million in Strasburg’s case, it appears).

*I don’t acknowledge Strasburg was “healthy” in 2012.  People recovering from injury aren’t healthy, they’re recovering.  Tommy John surgery takes more than a year to recover from.  

It was fun to poke fun at the Mets last night, but I don’t think Harvey’s bad game, or even bad April/May, has a lot of impact on this debate.  It’s possible Harvey’s arm is tired from last season’s extended workload, but it’s equally possible Harvey didn’t adequately prepare for the season (remember was sidelined in early April due to some ailment allegedly–and unbelievably–tied to holding his bladder too long).  It’s also possible, if not likely, this is a temporary blip in performance common among MLB pitchers.

I’m a fan of the Strasburg Shutdown.  Actually, “fan” is the wrong terminology.  I acknowledge it’s a crappy thing to do, but I thought it was wise nonetheless.  It was the lesser of two evils.  There are so many unknowns in elbow ligaments, the safest course in the safest course.  I think it’s a mistake for teams to make up their own recovery schedules like the Mets did with Harvey, and the Braves did with Kris Medlen.  Do what the doctors recommend and, most importantly, what has worked in the past.  People focus on the Strasburg Shutdown because the Nats made the playoffs that season, but the Nats shut down Jordan Zimmermann in 2011 and Joe Ross in 2015 in almost the same way.  Indeed, every Nats pitcher undergoing Tommy John surgery follows the same recovery plan.

The focus, like many of Mike Rizzo’s moves, is on the long-term.  Long-term, Jordan Zimmermann was healthy enough to deliver four more healthy seasons after his shutdown, and then net the team a first round pick after signing with Detroit.  Joe Ross is now pitching in his first full season after Tommy John and it’s easy to imagine him doing something similar.  The Nats are so confident in their approach to UCL recovery, they draft players other teams won’t even touch like Lucas Giolito who is now the best pitching prospect in baseball.  Giolito followed the same recovery schedule as Strasburg/Zimmermann/Ross.

The Nationals shut down Stephen Strasburg amid great criticism in 2012.  Four years later, the winds have not shifted.  The external pressure for the Mets not to shut down Harvey last year, if anything, seemed greater than what the Nats faced with Strasburg.  Rizzo will keep shutting down his pitchers recovering from Tommy John surgery, however.  It must be tempting to amend his policy to include an “unless we make the playoffs, then we’ll ride him like a horse” clause, like the Mets did with Harvey, but they won’t.  In their minds, it’s not broken and they won’t fix it.

What offends me most about Harvey isn’t that the Mets pitched him into October, it’s that they did it without much thought at all.  The Mets made the playoffs, so he pitched.  He was available, so they used him.  This is the way baseball teams have approached recovering pitchers since baseball was invented, and likely why Strasburg Shutdown critics are so offended by any other approach.  I would be a Shutdown critic too, if the Nats did it arbitrarily.  They did not.  It was a carefully managed recovery plan, blessed by doctors, and proven to work.  There was nothing arbitrary about it.

Harvey’s terrible start to 2016 doesn’t settle anything.  Strasburg’s health since his surgery since 2012 doesn’t settle anything either.  I’m happy, though, to have a team taking an educated and enlightened approach to recovering elbows.  It’s possible the Nats have just gotten incredibly lucky the past 6 or 7 years with their pitchers’ health.  But since luck is the residue of design, I expect that luck to continue.

 

Reaction: Stephen Strasburg signs contract extension with the Nationals

I remember being in Nats Park the night Stephen Strasburg was drafted in June 2009.  The team was terrible back then, 16-40 to be exact.  There weren’t a lot of fans in attendance that day; the newness of a baseball team in DC had long since worn off.  The road to baseball relevance looked very, very long.  When the Nationals put Strasburg’s image in the big screen that night–effectively introducing him to the DC fans for the first time–I remember thinking if Nats ever become a winning baseball team, this guy will be a big reason why.

It was not surprising, then, when I found myself again at Nats Park a little over one year later for Strasburg’s first major league start.  It’s hard to explain “Strasmas” to anyone who wasn’t there in June 2010.  It was the strangest sporting event I ever attended.  Strasburg received a standing ovation when he walked from the bullpen to the dugout before the game.  Fans stood and applauded for every Strasburg pitch.  It was a playoff atmosphere for a meaningless June game.  It was the first time baseball in DC felt like big league baseball.

Ryan Zimmerman is often thought of as the face of the Nationals franchise.  He was their first ever draft pick and their first legitimate star player.  Zimmerman signed two contract extensions to stay in DC, and he’ll probably be a National his entire career.  It’s fitting, then, that Strasburg signed a contract extension too.  If Zim is the Face of the Franchise, Strasburg is the Face of the Turnaround.  He, too, now has the potential to be a National for life.

Soon we’ll learn why Strasburg decided to forego the free agent market this winter.  Almost everyone expected it.  To be honest, I was shocked when I heard the news about the contract extension last night.  Almost every Scott Boras client goes to free agency, and we had no reason to expect Strasburg to be any different.  For some reason, he decided to stay here.

Perhaps Boras did a full survey of the market and concluded Strasburg was unlikely to get a 7-year deal anywhere else.  Maybe Boras had concerns about Strasburg’s health, and concluded it was wise to grab $175 million while it was still on the table.  After all, no Tommy John pitcher has ever come close to that kind of contract (the previous record was Jordan Zimmerman this past offseason for $105 million).  When you’re one ligament tear away from getting no contract extension whatsoever, $175 million has to very tempting.

But I’m going to lie to myself and conclude Strasburg signed with the Nats the same reason the fans wanted him to stay here.  I’m going to think Strasburg values his role in the Nationals franchise turnaround.  In my mind, I imagine a conversation between Strasburg and Tony Gwynn, his college coach, back in 2008.  Tony Gwynn was the rare star player to stay with one team and one city his entire career.  Somewhere along the line, maybe Strasburg picked up the value in that.

Too often we think of baseball as a business.  To the fans, it’s not.  There’s an emotional element to keeping Strasburg in a Nationals uniform.  If you don’t understand it, there’s probably no way I can explain it to you.

All 11 Nationals Home Openers, Ranked

The Nationals may or may not play their 12th home opener in modern history this afternoon. Here is a definitive ranking of the previous 11 home openers.

11. 2010 – The Nats are blown out 11-1 by the Phillies. Worse, the stadium was filled with Phillies fans thanks, in part, to Stan Kastan’s policy of selling block tickets to out of town fans before individual tickets went on sale to the public. Coming off two horrific seasons in 2008 and 2009, there’s a good argument this day was the low point in Nationals history.

10. 2009 – The Nats entered the game 0-6 and left the game 0-7 after losing to the defending champion Phillies, 9-8. By the time this game ended we were all on notice that the 2009 season would be just as painful as 2008. One bright spot: Christian Guzman went five for five.

9. 2011 – It was cold. It wasn’t even April yet. Livan Hernandez turns in a quality performance in his last opening day start. But the Nats lose a lackluster 2-0 game to the Braves.

8. 2007 – The last opening day at RFK. John Patterson got rocked and the Nationals lost 9-2 to Dontrelle Willis and the Marlins. It was an inauspicious start to the beginning of the Manny Acta era.

7. 2006 – Everything about the home opener in 2006 was a little bit of a bummer. The team was already 2-5 on their way to 91 losses. Opening Day starter Ramon Ortiz gave up four runs and the Nats lost 7-1 to a superior Mets team. The excitement of the previous years home opener had already started to wear off. Can anyone name the leadoff hitter from the home opener in 2006? Anyone? Brandon Watson.

6. 2014 – Not great weather as the Nats lose 2-1 to the Braves in part due to the Justin Upton ground rule double fiasco. The loss wouldn’t be nearly as bad if it didn’t breathe more life into the annoying “the Nats can’t beat the Braves” narrative.

5. 2015 – Last season’s home opener started well. Great weather. Bryce Harper homering in his second at bat. Max Scherzer beginning his Nats career with 5 shutout innings. Unfortunately, a critical miscommunication between Dan Uggla and Ian Desmond on a routine pop-up opened the door to some Mets runs and the Nats bats were silenced by Bartolo Colon and the Mets bullpen (including recently traded Jerry Blevins). It was a foreshadow to a disappointing 2015 season. The Nats lost 3-1.

4. 2012 – Nationals win a 3-2 walk off against the Reds in the 10th inning after a blown save by closer Brad Lidge (spoiling a nice start by Gio Gonzalez). The win moved the Nats record to 5-2 to start the season. After quality end to 2011, we started to get the feeling that the Nationals were actually playoff contenders.

3. 2008 – The first game at Nats Park. The excitement of a new stadium puts this game high on the list. But Ryan Zimmerman’s walk off homerun in the 9th inning puts it higher. Unfortunately the temperature dropped steadily throughout the game. By the time Zim hit his homer, the stadium was half empty and freezing. Also, while the Opening Night walkoff provided a signature moment for the new stadium, nobody in that park thought the Nats would be contenders that season dampening some of the enthusiasm.

2. 2013 – Almost everything about Opening Day 2013 was perfect. Bryce Harper hit the first two good pitches he saw out of the ballpark. Stephen Strasburg nearly threw a shutout. And the game was over in record time. That season didn’t turn out as planned but on that day it looked like the Nats would be cruising to their second straight National League East title.

1. 2005 – This will be #1 forever. Everything was perfect. The President threw out the first pitch (and didn’t bounce it). Livan Hernandez threw a gem. Vinny Castilla almost hit for the cycle (thanks Lance Cormier). The stands were bouncing. Most importantly professional baseball was back in Washington DC.  It’ll never get better than Opening day 2005.

Thoughts on the Nationals Opening Day 2016 win

The most instructive moment of yesterday’s 4-3 Opening Day win over Atlanta came in the top of the 10th inning, when Ryan Zimmerman hit a routine groundball to the shortstop position, which was then fielded by the shifted second basemen for the Braves, Gordon Beckham. As a frequent viewer of Nats-Braves games over the past few seasons, I instinctively assumed the play would result in an out the moment the ball was hit. The overwhelming majority of baseballs hit to the shortstop position against the Braves lately have resulted in outs, thanks to defensive wizard Andrelton Simmons, who often made the difficult plays routine and the routine plays automatic  Yesterday, however, Beckham fielded the ball and threw it so wide of the Braves’ first baseman, Zimmerman was able to move into scoring position with the game tied 3-3.  Daniel Murphy subsequently drove in the go-ahead run, and the Nationals won 4-3.

It was a free run—the kind of run often allowed by bad baseball teams. And it was given up by Gordon Beckham, the kind of quad-A journeyman employed by bad baseball teams whose priority isn’t winning but rebuilding. Simmons was traded this past offseason after the Braves deemed him a luxury they no longer needed. In return for Simmons, the Braves landed, among other players, consensus top-50 pitching prospect Sean Newcomb, who is still a year away from the Majors. Shortstop Dansby Swanson, the first overall pick in the 2015 draft and also a consensus Top-50 prospect, is also in the Braves minor league system. Someday he’ll take Simmons’ old position at shortstop, but right now he’s simply not ready and he’s definitely not needed. The Braves aren’t trying to win this season. They’re aiming for 2017 when their new stadium opens in Cobb County and their top farm system (as rated by ESPN’s Keith Law) begins to contribute at the major league level. When the Braves eventually have players like Newcomb and Swanson, they may be a tough team. But right now they’re stuffed with players like Beckham, who are essentially placeholders—they don’t require a long term financial commitment and they keep the team from wasting top prospects’ valuable pre-arbitration MLB service time.

It’s noteworthy this game was saved by Jonathan Papelbon, since he was jettisoned by another rebuilding NL East team currently not trying to compete—the Phillies. Philadelphia, like Atlanta, has a consensus top-10 system that might eventually make life difficult for Nationals. Right now, however, their roster has too many Gordon Beckhams. The real cavalry has yet to arrive.

The Nationals went 26-12 against the Braves and the Phillies last season. This is noteworthy because they were only 57-67 against the rest of baseball. Now, it’s not usual for playoff contenders to run up huge victory margins over bad teams in their division, but the Nats are uniquely positioned to have two potentially formidable rivals down at the same time. The Phillies sit on one of baseball’s biggest TV contracts, but haven’t yet flexed that financial muscle. The Braves’ new stadium in 2017 also promises new revenue the team has yet to utilize.

Tom Boswell wrote a preseason column a few weeks ago predicting 2018 as “the year” for the current Washington Nationals. In 2018, Boswell argued, Bryce Harper will be in the final year of Nats’ team control and top Nats prospects Trea Turner and Lucas Giolito will be hitting their primes. Well. Max Scherzer and Ryan Zimmerman will have left their primes. And most importantly, the Nats current top prospects will presumably be squaring off against the products of the Braves’ and Phillies’ more abundant farm systems.

Yogi Berra said it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. The Braves’ current wave of prospects may fizzle. Same for the Phillies. Same for Giolito and Turner. Present day reminds us, however, the Nats best window to win might be right now. An Opening Day win, assisted by a journeyman placeholder on a team more concerned about the first pick of the 2017 draft than a pennant race, tells us it’s best not to wait for 2018.

 

Would MLB expansion affect the Nats?

Jon Morosi caught me off guard yesterday when I read that MLB might be looking to expand. Only two years ago, I wrote that expansion is no longer financial advantageous to the owners, and DC was lucky to grab the Expos while they could.

My reasoning at the time was relatively simple. First, there are few open metro markets with the population to support another MLB team. Morosi correctly notes MLB owners would be hesitant to create another beneficiary of revenue sharing. Another factor: centralized revenue through national TV contracts and MLB Advanced Media is growing, and expansion cuts that pie into smaller pieces.

Franchise values have become so high, however, MLB owners could realistically charge an exorbitant fee to an expansion team’s new owner. A decade after MLB charged the Lerners over $400 million to buy the Nats, a new expansion owner might have to pay well over a billion dollars which would be pure profit for the existing owners. Morosi also identified another factor I never considered: realignment to make Cable TV more profitable. Dividing MLB into Eastern and Western leagues puts more games in prime time, further feeding the current Golden Goose for most MLB teams: local television contracts.

Expansion might affect the Nats in two ways. Most obviously, realignment might put the Nats into a different division, maybe with Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh or Baltimore (which would be easy to imagine since it would be an attendance boost for both teams).

But the most interesting development would come if MLB expanded into what I believe is the most logical market for a new baseball team: Charlotte ( Note: Morosi has at least four cities ahead of Charlotte on his list). Peter Angelos owns the television rights to an area extending south in North Carolina. For MLB to put a team in Charlotte, they would likely have to reach an agreement with Angelos similar to the one they reached prior to moving the Nationals to DC.

Of course, the prospect of starting another television rights war with Peter Angelos might be enough to persuade MLB to avoid expanding into North Carolina at all. But if the thirst for expansion becomes so great and Charlotte becomes the most obvious choice (over Montreal, Austin, Vancouver, or San Antonio), a solution regarding TV rights would need to be reached. Would MLB add the new team to MASN, giving the network control over three teams? Or would they use the occasion to confront Angelos to try to take away TV rights he logically shouldn’t have in the first place? The answer likely depends on whether MLB is more angry at Angelos or still scared of him. MLB initially gave the Nats TV rights to Angelos because they feared going to court over the matter. Now that Angelos has taken them to court anyway, why would they fear another court battle?

Morosi’s most likely expansion candidates included three cities outside the US, two in Canada and one in Latin America. Expanding overseas, while scratching the commissioner’s itch to “grow the game,” is deeply problematic from a financial standpoint. Getting stadiums built, attracting new fans, and overcoming dollar exchange rates are all huge challenges to expanding into foreign countries. Expanding within the US is far easier where Charlotte is the best choice. It’s larger than Austin and doesn’t cut into an existing fan base (like Austin does with the Astros). Moreover, the Charlotte metro area continues to grow already has the 23rd largest metro population, larger than several cities with existing MLB franchises. Charlotte is already big enough to support franchises in the other three major sports.

Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but if MLB ever got serious about expansion, it would likely set the stage for another MASN confrontation. For those of us waiting for a solution to this mess, that couldn’t be a bad thing.

 

How much did the Qualifying Offer system hurt Ian Desmond?

One day later, it’s still shocking Ian Desmond settled for a one year, $8 million contract only two years after rejecting a 5 year, $89.5 million extension from the Nats, calling it a “terrible deal.”

In the immediate aftermath of Desmond’s signing, the conventional wisdom seems to be coalescing around the idea he was disproportionately hurt by MLB’s bizarre qualifying offer system, requiring the team that signs him to forfeit a draft pick in next June’s draft. Yesterday, in my reaction piece to the Desmond signing, I addressed the role the qualifying offer played in Desmond’s depressed market value.

The qualifying offer, however, only partially explains why the market for Ian Desmond was so soft this winter. Twenty different free agents received qualifying offers last November and all of them found homes before Desmond (12 of them signed with new teams requiring the forfeiture of a draft pick). It says something about Desmond’s perceived value that the Rangers only signed him to a one year contract. Even after crossing the threshold where they decided to give up a draft pick to sign him, Texas still didn’t think he was worth a second or third year.*

*It’s worth noting by signing Desmond to one year deal, Texas retains the option of offering Desmond a qualifying offer next offseason and maybe recouping their lost draft pick. But the qualifying offer salary next year will be more than double Desmond’s $8 million salary this year, making it far from certain Texas would offer one.

The more credible explanation for Desmond’s depressed market value is his poor performance. As noted yesterday, Desmond struck out at a rate of 29.2% last season, a staggering number considering his on base percentage was only .290. Put simply, he failed to put the ball in play more often than he reached base. This low contact/low on base skillset is increasingly inconsistent with the trend around baseball. Consider, for example, the strikeout rates for the starting nine World Series Champion Kansas City Royals and compare it to Desmond’s 29.2% last year:

Lorenzo Cain – 16.2%

Mike Moustakas – 12.4%

Eric Hosmer – 16.2%

Alex Gordan – 21.8%

Kendrys Morales – 16.1%

Jarrod Dyson – 16.4%

Salvador Perez – 14.8%

Ben Zobrist – 11.4%

Desmond brings a high-risk/high-reward approach to hitting, common in the modern era. But as power pitchers inundate the game and strikeouts reach historic levels, teams are increasingly turning to an old school approach, players who can put the ball in play and avoid giving the opponents easy outs.

While the qualifying offer certainly dimmed Desmond’s value, it’s instructive to look at the team that didn’t need to forfeit a draft pick to sign him—the Nats. After trading Yunel Escobar this winter, the Nats actually had an opening in the middle infield, and for much of the winter could have brought Desmond back to play SS or 2B. Instead, the Nats followed baseball’s trend, turning to Daniel Murphy and his high-contact style of hitting. Murphy only struck out 7.1% of his plate appearances last year, less than a one fourth of Desmond’s rate. Oh, and the Nats had no problem forfeiting a draft pick to bring him in.

As I wrote yesterday, there were many factors why Desmond’s market fell over $80 million in two years. By focusing on the qualifying offer and ignoring everything else, people are failing to see the full picture. If Desmond doesn’t see the full picture either, he may have the same problem again next season.