Given that the title is "A Modest Proposal", I'm assuming that Griffin is attempting to imitate Jonathan Swift. It's not exactly biting, cutting-edge satire, though, so there's always the possibility that Griffin might be being serious.

What a garbage article - regardless of his intentions. I'm dumber for having read it...and that's saying a lot.

Given that the title is "A Modest Proposal", I'm assuming that Griffin is attempting to imitate Jonathan Swift.

It's a bad attempt, but yes. I missed the "Modest Proposal" headline.

This isn't clever, and it's only funny because it's so pathetic. Hate the DH because you're such a National League traditionalist? Change to nine of them, and while you're at it, add as many Designated Fielders as you like.

Rich's worst fear about the "mutation" of baseball in the hands of the enlightened -- "all that matters will be runs scored" -- shows that after all these years, he doesn't understand the most basic principle of the game -- all that matters is runs scored.

A week after reading a Griffin column, the implications still bother me.

Wow.

About the only thing that makes sense in that entire piece is that he's probably right about a game full of walks and home runs being less interesting than a game full of stolen bases and triples, in the same way that basketball games become more boring as coaches employ the end-game strategy of fouling on every possession. Both may improve the likelihood of victory, and coaches are going to do whatever they think gives them the best chance of winning.

If one is really troubled by this "discovery" about the relative value of walks, HR, stolen bases, etc., and its effect on the game, a more modest proposal might be to, oh, I don't know, call the strike zone as it's described in the rule book, so pitchers aren't forced to throw one down the pipe to get a called strike. Or hey, maybe you move the fences back 10-20 feet so managers get tired of seeing fly balls die on the warning track and they start thinking about other ways to score runs.

Or, you could just do what this insane author suggests.

Personally, I love the idea of moving the fences back in a bunch of parks, but it'll never happen because that takes seats out of ballparks.

One of the things that is great about watching Colorado games is the giant outfield they have, which makes for lots of running catches, and lots of doubles and triples. Fun stuff.

I'd love to see it copied at SkyDome; move the fences right back to under Windows and the Hard Rock, get a couple of fast outfielders (Rios and Gross?) to complement Vernon "I Go Back With Anyone In The Game" Wells, and start pounding the ball through the gaps against the slow-footed outfields of the AL East. Talk about home-field advantage!

Of course, Tanyon Sturtze could still give up home runs in Griffith Stadium... so the long ball wouldn't totally disappear.

About the only thing that makes sense in that entire piece is that he's probably right about a game full of walks and home runs being less interesting than a game full of stolen bases and triples, in the same way that basketball games become more boring as coaches employ the end-game strategy of fouling on every possession.

You're right here. But what will save those fans looking for more exciting baseball, and what Griffin fails to realize, is that a strategy is only effective until another team employs a new strategy that takes advantage of the weaknesses of that first one. The teams who can't think for themselves will them shift to that new, hot strategy. Baseball is cyclical in that sense, more so than any other sport I'd say.

Say that walks and home runs do become all the rage and nearly every team looks to build their rosters around players that exemplify these skills, with less concentration on speed and defense. First, the principles of supply and demand would dictate that the salaries of those kinds of players are going to go up; one of the chief reasons this is an effective strategy is that risks and any subsequent mistakes are easier to swallow since the cost of players is relatively low. As salaries go up and rich teams direct their money that way, the poorer teams that can't afford the Jason Giambis will mostly be left with players that are fast, strong defensively and can still handle the bat (eg. Vernon Wells...he's the type of player the JP regime wouldn't have drafted). Many of the rich and upper-middle-class teams will still spend inefficiently and continue to have their hands binded by poor decisions, becoming unable to shift gears out of that strategy. The new wave of smart, open-minded GMs, much smarter than myself, will find some new way to use these kinds of leftovers to exploit the poor defense of teams that are full out, pedal to the metal, OBP followers.

Whatever the new plan is, the point is that no baseball strategy is without it's holes. Baseball will continue to change as it always has.

What I don't understand at all about Griffin's article is that the A's are not a team built on homers and walks (despite their attempts to do so) but are succeeding because of their superior pitching and a defence that is able to convert more than 70% of balls in play into outs. So I don't see at where he gets the impression that the only thing that matters in the A's system is runs scored.

All the Blue Jays have tried to do for the past two years is acquire and draft affordable pitching talent.

And it's REALLY odd that a guy that hates the DH wants to give teams the ability to employ NINE of them. The only thing that prevents teams from largely discounting a player's athletic ability is the player's propensity to know how to put on a glove and catch things with it.

And how does it solve the problem of building a team on a budget again? Are the Yankees and A's suddenly going to be equalized now that the A's have to somehow afford five MORE players on their major league roster and diversify their scouting to take defence into much greater consideration? Once again, the teams that can afford the most talent and the most scouts will have the upper hand.

And how does it solve the problem of building a team on a budget again?

Exactly. While the MLBPA would go for the extra jobs, it's not like they'd be supportive of pay cuts for the guys who won't play D. The hitters will still get the big bucks and then you have to pay the defenders too.

Spicol:

I agree with you generally. Strategies have shifted throughout baseball history and will continue to do so, particularly as the market for players with varying skill sets shifts. Heck, if OPS gets to the point of being overvalued, maybe the A's can build a roster full of slaphitting rabbits for the minimum at each position and end up with $40 million to spend on pitching ;-)

Sometimes, though, changes in the game or the rules limits the ability to shift strategy. For example, in football, rules changes permitting OL to extend their hands to block have led to the 350-lb. lineman. That animal couldn't exist in the old NFL, and while you might argue that large OL can be countered by a regression to 280-lb. OL who can outmaneuver those big guys, I don't think that's realistic given the rules changes. They simply don't maximize the extent of holding permitted. Similarly, I wonder if the shift to smaller parks means that a return to "toolsy" speedsters (shorthand for non-sabermetric darling) simply can't be optimum, even with larger supply and decreased demand. But who knows? I'm certainly not stating that as true, just a possibility.

Finally, maybe I'm showing that I'm not obsessed with baseball or anything, but does anybody really think that guys are going to toil away in the minors for 4-5 years without getting a PA? Don't get me wrong, it's not like it's a chore to play in the field, but I always regarded getting to bat as the payoff for the work you put in out in the field. If these athletes don't want to spend 4 years in the minors, as RG contends, why would they do so if they only got to play defense?

Are we spending too much time discussing an article that is either (a) insane or (b) a joke?

Many of the rich and upper-middle-class teams will still spend inefficiently and continue to have their hands binded by poor decisions, becoming unable to shift gears out of that strategy. The new wave of smart, open-minded GMs, much smarter than myself, will find some new way to use these kinds of leftovers to exploit the poor defense of teams that are full out, pedal to the metal, OBP followers.

I'll apologize for the long quote, over-quoting is a pet peeve of mine... but Spicol is pointing towards an extremely interesting question with regards to the future of baseball management, and sabermetrics. The Jays and A's are employing their current strategy, emphasizing OBP etc., not only because it's affordable: They're employing it because they've determined that it's the most effective affordable option. Their research shows that the best way to score runs is to emphasize OBP (and SLG, and K/BB, and K/9, and drafting college players, and so on), regardless of how much money you have to spend. It's a happy coincidence for them that OBP is vastly undervalued in the professional baseball market, while things like speed and defense are currently overvalued.

I agree with Spicol that rest of the market will eventually catch on that the sabermetric teams are building perennial powerhouse teams using this strategy, and doing so on relatively small budgets, and the market will shift such that OBP becomes too pricey for the poorer teams. Here's where it gets interesting: The current state of sabermetrics says that this OBP strategy is the best one, regardless of your budget. So that means that the poor teams will be left with some less than great options. They could adopt a lesser strategy and hope to implement it so effectively that they can overcome both big budgets and superior strategy. Alternately, they could try digging even deeper into sabermetrics and discover some new hidden truth about optimum baseball strategy. But here's where the rich teams will really cut them out: Besides having caught on to the current strategy of the sabermetric teams, they'll also have caught on to the value of the Keith Laws and Paul DePodestas of the world, and the poor teams will not be able to compete for the best sabermetric minds. So not only will the rich teams be employing the best personnel strategy, they'll be the best equipped to come up with improvements on the strategy.

Am I missing something or is this current era, where a smart team can overcome huge financial disadvantage, ultimately a limited period of time? I think economics probably says "Yes, eventually the money will rule." Hopefully it'll take several decades and Commisioner Bub won't be around to say "I told you so!".

ere's where the rich teams will really cut them out: Besides having caught on to the current strategy of the sabermetric teams, they'll also have caught on to the value of the Keith Laws and Paul DePodestas of the world, and the poor teams will not be able to compete for the best sabermetric minds. So not only will the rich teams be employing the best personnel strategy, they'll be the best equipped to come up with improvements on the strategy.

There are millions of these guys out there, that part dosn't wash. You can't feasibly lock up all the talent in this area. DePodesta gone? Fine, I'll hire Tangotiger. Tango gets lured away? I'll grab Robert Dudek. Robert takes the 10-year megabuck deal from the Yankees? That's OK, Mike Emeigh is out there.

Look at the Red Sox... they could have hired anyone in the field, and the guy they chose to get was the guy who has spent the last twelve years deliberately isolating himself from the field.

Besides having caught on to the current strategy of the sabermetric teams, they'll also have caught on to the value of the Keith Laws and Paul DePodestas of the world, and the poor teams will not be able to compete for the best sabermetric minds.

Craig is right that there's no shortage of talent in this area. But the new philosophy will probably come from somewhere entirely unexpected. Revolutionaries always hit you out of nowhere. I'm willing to bet that we don't yet know the person who will be able to think differently enough to separate themselves from the sabermetric pack, so to speak, and come up with the next great thought...well, baseball thought that is.

Okay, I'll give you that the talent pool of sabermetric thinkers and bright minds in general is a lot deeper than the talent pool of people willing and able to play baseball at the professional level. But this only gives the poor teams the chance to match the rich teams in terms of front office brainpower, they won't continue to enjoy the advantage they currently do. From full integration of sabermetrics (2010? 2020? 2030?) until some bright mind comes up with something 'better', the mighty buck will rule. And I agree with Spicol, the next 'revolutionary' idea will probably come out of nowhere. The poor teams may still enjoy the advantage of being more willing to try something new rather than something traditional, but at this point everybody has a boatload of bright lights in the front office where there used to be stodgy old baseball men. This means the rich teams and dumb teams and Baltimore Orioles alike will be quicker to recognize the advantage of the new thinking and follow suit. Will they somehow not be able to leverage their wallets? Well, it is a revolutionary idea that hasn't even been conceived yet, so anything's possible.

"Despite the obvious logic and vision, baseball will likely stick to leather-helmet traditions, continuing a Beane-led transformation into a mutation of its former glorious self in which all that matters will be runs scored."

Obvious logic and wisdom? How does Tricky Dick's head make it through doorways in the Toronto Star's offices? He comes up with an idea that would further ruin all that he loves about baseball, and calls that logic 'obvious'? I now realize that Richard Griffin is the 'obvious' replacement for Bud Selig in the Commissioner's Office. Who needs a used-car salesman when you can have a clueless newspaper columnist?

Speaking about offence, there is absolutely no substitute for OBP. I've said it before, and it bears repeating, you can't have a great offence without a high OBP.

While OBP is a wonderfully simple statistic, what it measures - the ability to get on base - is a devilishly complex thing. A big part of getting on base is the ability to hit for power. Being able to hit for power means that the opposing pitchers have to pitch you carefully. If you are sufficiently selective and are able to make consistent contact, you've going to draw a lot of walks and have a high OBP.

As more guys come into the league with an eye to drawing walks, more pitchers will be brought in who have pinpoint control. Players like Scott Hatteberg or Luis Castillo will have a difficult time getting on base unless they develop more power. There is evidence that this is already happening:

Non-Intentional Walks per opportunity

1998 AL 8.4%, NL 8.2%
1999 AL 9.0%, NL 9.0%
2000 AL 9.2%, NL 9.0%
2001 AL 7.8%, NL 7.9%
2002 AL 8.0%, NL 8.2%

The other kind of hitter with a high OBP is a guy who can hit for a high batting average but feels comfortable going deep into the count, but without a lot of power. I'm thinking of a player like Derek Jeter or Mark Grace.

BTW,

I can't think of a worse baseball writer than RG. I mean, how can a guys who knows so little about the sport he's supposed to cover be allowed to keep his job?

I realize I'm joining this discussion a little late, but there's a few things I'd like to add.

Even once all teams are sabermetrically-inclined, there will still be inefficiencies. We shouldn't assume that once everyone understands on-base percentage and the various other statistcial concepts everyone will be the same. Teams still need to be able to execute a plan for success. By most accounts Dan O'Dowd is a forward-thinking individual, but when it comes to building a winning team he's been a disaster. Front offices who can draw up a plan and know how to implement it (such as the Athletics) will still have an edge.

I should also point out that while people in the sabermetric community have the same general philosophy, there are an awful lot of disagreements. Two sabermaticians can look at the exact same data and come to entirely different conclusions. Just like in every other field, some people are going to be better at this than others. There are going to be a few sabermetric crackpots working in front offices.

I think that once every team has its own number-crunchers, we could once again see emphasis placed on two of the more traditional areas: coaching and scouting. That's where the next revolution will likely be. Once teams know the best players are the ones who can get on-base and get extra-base hits, the trick will be to make the best players. A coach somewhere might find a technique that is able to bring out the best in players, or there may be certain physical skills that have been completely overlooked to-date that could be important. We may be close to the point of diminishing marginal returns for the analysis of player performance, but might still be a ways off from that as far as player development goes.

As more guys come into the league with an eye to drawing walks, more pitchers will be brought in who have pinpoint control....There is evidence that this is already happening:

Robert, do you think that pitchers have improved in this regard or is the change in walk rates more due to the change in how the strike zone is being called?

We shouldn't assume that once everyone understands on-base percentage and the various other statistcial concepts everyone will be the same.

Great point, Ryan. There will always be guys who put more stock in some measures than others. I think you're right that there is a lot of room to improve in how players are found and coached and Mike Moffatt (I think) brought up how we can do more to ensure that players are being used to maximum effect through platoons and such. I also think that a lot more can be done on the medical side...mental and physical conditioning as well as how injuries are prevented, diagnosed and recovered from.

Ryan, I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I think you're talking about something off to the side of my question, which was "Will the money eventually rule?". I agree with you and Spicol, that not all teams will be following exactly the same strategy, but they'll be a lot more similar than they are now. Money will outweigh any advantage gained by a superior strategy when everybody is following sabermetrics, and the money advantage will be key at least until the 'next revolution'. That revolution will have to be radical indeed to overcome the might buck.

The advantage the A's have enjoyed, and the Jays are starting to enjoy, is that they are the first teams to implement a new and improved approach. Boston has already caught on, and will be better equipped to implement it than the A's or Jays because of their financial resources. For instance, suppose all three teams decide that free agent Joe Batter would be a great acquisition this off-season and they should do everything they can to sign him: Boston will win, because they can offer a lot more money. And with the curious contract extension for Scott Hatteberg, Billy Beane has already started to raise the price of commodites which are valuable to sabermetricians only.

When the whole market comes around and implements sabermetric strategies, the commodities the Jays & A's get on the cheap right now will become too expensive for them. More importantly, with sabermetric thinking in all front offices the rich teams will be just as likely as the poor teams to come up with new & improved strategies, if not more likely. And more importantly yet, the replacement of baseball traditionalists with sabermetric thinkers will result in a market that recognizes and responds much quicker to good new ideas. One of the basic principles of sabermetrics is to analyze everything as objectively as possible rather than following "gut feel" or anything else that can't be backed up with data, so no team will be able to take advantage of a new (affordable) strategy for long. You could argue that in other industries small companies become huge successes by doing things differently, but one of the many unique aspects of professional sports as an industry is that everything is done much more publicly - It's pretty near impossible to implement anything without all of your competitors being aware that something's up.

Mike Moffat said something really interesting on the "next revolution" topic in one of the minor league threads, and I'm going take the liberty of quoting him here.

I think the big revolution is going to come in usage patterns, not changing how players are acquired. There's no way that current pitching usage is at all optimal, let alone the ratio of pitchers to fielders on a roster. I have a feeling this is going to involve platoons of a more non-traditional nature (say fastball vs. curveball).

I think Mike's right, we could see some radical changes in pitching management. Teach your pitchers to play a passable second base so that you can have two 'pitchers' on the field and swap them back and forth for optimal matchups? Build a staff entirely of 3 to 4 inning guys who pitch every three days? It'll definitely be interesting.