Winter's Blues

Let's face it; January is the worst month for a baseball fan. The glory of October has faded. Spring, the fountain of all new hope, is but a distant glow on the horizon. And that behemoth of a fellow sport - football - is in its fullest phase. Winter meetings have passed, the contracts have been signed, the awards have been handed out.

It is always darkest before the dawn.

So, in this month of our baseball discontent, I give you the truly awesome link of the month: Humbug: Random Diamond Notes. Yes, Virginia. It's a randomly generated set of Peter-Gammons-esque diamond notes. No, Maryland, Peter Gammons probably does not approve.

Enjoy.

Bill Ladson Strikes Out

Given that a roving mob of Nats bloggers have recently completed a beat-down of MLB.com Nats beat reporter Bill Ladson, it's probably safe for me to sneak up to his gurgling carcass and give it a few more swift kicks. Ladson likes to justify the Soriano trade by whining about Brad Wilkerson's strikeouts, as on display here in a response to a shadowy "Chris N., Alexandria" back in December:

Why are you so down on strikeouts? They're frustrating to watch, but they're not all that different from a ground out.-- Chris N., Alexandria, Va.

I'm not down on strikeouts, and I know where you are coming from here. You are miffed by the way I've talked about Brad Wilkerson and his strikeouts the last two months. If Wilkerson was a clutch hitter like Reggie Jackson (he is the all-time strikeout king), I wouldn't dwell on Wilkerson's whiffs. The truth is, Wilkerson was killing the team with his strikeouts. I can't tell you how many times he looked at strike three and walked back to the dugout. Wilkerson hit .248 with 11 home runs, 57 RBIs and 147 strikeouts. Let's see how long the Rangers tolerate the strikeouts. If Wilkerson hit .330 with 50 homeruns and 130 RBIs, the strikeouts would be less of a concern.

He takes another shot at Wilk in the most recent mailbag, "Acquiring [Cubs' Corey] Patterson to be a leadoff hitter would be a mistake. While Brad Wilkerson struck out a ton, he at least drew walks."

Capitol Punishment has been a staunch defender of Wilkerson's strikeouts with this theory: if you want a guy to try to hit homeruns, he's gonna have to strikeout a fair amount. And while Wilkerson was the Nats leadoff hitter, he was expected also to be a source of power for the team last year.

Today, that theory gets a boost of support, and Ladson's lame-brained view gets a swift kick in the jimmies, with a great article by Dave Studeman at the Hardball Times. Using some neat graphs, Studes explains that outfield fly balls come in very different types, and some are much more productive than others. The second graph in the article also shows that there is a high correlation between productive OFs and strikeout rate, confirming the thesis that producing high-value flyballs has a price of more strikeouts -- except for a handful of players like Bonds, Pujols and Vlad Guerrero who manage to produce without a lot of Ks.

So, in essence, Ladson's beef with Wilkerson boils down to this: Wilkerson was a problem because he's not Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols. Even Little DM can opine on that.

DuPuy's OpEd Presents the Problem...and Solution

If you haven't seen it, you should read Bob DuPuy's OpEd piece in the Washington Post today. I first heard about it listening to sports radio this morning, and figured it was little more than a complaint about the DC government being hard to deal with. No real new ground there.

And, sure enough, it is chock full of juicy quotes like:

Asking baseball to pay for overruns when D.C. government officials are in charge of the stadium's design and construction is like MasterCard telling you to pay your credit card bill even though MasterCard gets to do all your shopping. No consumer would agree to such a provision, and neither will Major League Baseball.

and, frustratingly:

The Senators left the District of Columbia 30 years ago for a reason -- they
found more fan and governmental support in Texas. When baseball made plans to expand in 1990 and 1995, Washington's desire to secure a team was easily outmatched by the enthusiasm and commitment of Florida, Colorado, Arizona and Tampa Bay.

Wow, that's kicking the city in its collective gonads. I mean, saying that Washington didn't have the enthusiasm and commitment of Tampa Bay are almost fighting words.

But the essential point made by DuPuy about the problem is a good one. DuPuy writes that:

In baseball and in business, if you run the project, you're responsible for its
costs. When teams are in charge of design and construction, any savings go to them and any cost overruns are borne by them. That's what was done with new ballparks for the Detroit Tigers and the San Francisco Giants. That's also how MCI Center was built. On the other hand, when a government agency is in charge of design and construction, the benefits and risks are covered by the city. That's what happened in Baltimore at Camden Yards and in Cleveland and Pittsburgh as well. That's common sense, and it's fair.

That is surprisingly well put by Mr. DuPuy. I say that not because I expect little from MLB or Bob DuPuy, but because it is so persuasive of a point that MLB should have been hammering it home for the past few months.

By presenting the problem so effectively, DuPuy also presents an obvious solution: If DC wants MLB to cover the cost overruns, it should have MLB in charge of stadium design and construction. In other words, have MLB contract to deliver a stadium on time and on budget. If the stadium is over budget, MLB as the general contractor picks up the cost. That is the de facto way of having baseball cover the overages on stadium construction. In addition, it is also likely to produce a stadium designed to optimize the revenues of the Nationals.

In addition, putting MLB in charge of stadium design and construction would also correct some major flaws in the process. First, Nats fans would not be saddled with the horrendous steel and concrete stadium design. Second, it would eliminate the ridiculous $35 million that DC has slated for stadium design and "consulting." Third, it takes money out of the hands of the cronyist, corrupt DC government.

MLB should be in control of stadium design and construction. And, by consequence, responsible for any cost overruns.