Learning the Lesson

So I went out to see Moneyball, right?  Fun time; good movie.  The movie talks a lot about taking walks in baseball.  The idea is that a walk is, most of the time, just as good as a hit, since either way you end up on base which is the most important part.  The idea of taking a walk is a strange one, though.  I remember when I was  a little kid I loved taking the walk.  When I was in 3rd grade, I played baseball.  I was a member of the AAA Twins, and I think we were pretty good.  I was the shortest kid on the team, and after just a few weeks I realized that I got on base a lot more often when I didn't swing the bat.  You see, AAA was the first level when the kids pitched for themselves, and it was hard to throw a ball inside the strike zone of a kid that's right around 4 feet tall.  I loved getting on base, because when you were on base you got to run around (and even steal bases!)  As I've mentioned in the past, running was kind of my thing, so I wanted to do whatever it took to let me run.  I didn't really learn much about baseball though.

Flash forward to a couple years ago.  I was umpiring a AAA game for San Ramon Little League.  When I umpire that age group, the strike zone I call is gigantic.  If that kid can hit it, and it isn't at his eyeballs or on the ground, it's probably a strike.  This is to encourage the kids to swing the bat.  The pitchers have fun when they put the ball past the batter, the fielders have fun when they get to field the ball, and kids get to run around.  Everyone wins.  Nonetheless, on my way out, I was barked at by a bitter parent who was questioning the educational value of calling a gigantic strike zone.  I, in turn, questioned the value of sticking the bat on the shoulder and taking a free pass.  I knew I had done it when I was a kid.  I didn't really learn much about baseball though.

I wonder if this shaped my view of baseball at all.  I'm a huge fan of sabermetrics these days, and I know the value of the walk.  To me, it doesn't matter if you try the hardest on the field or if you're the nicest guy; what matters is that you put runs up for your team and stop the other team from doing the same.  I came to this conclusion after reading books like Moneyball and Baseball Prospectus, and through normal rational thought.  The question is, why do I think kids should swing the bat and adults should take the walk?  Is it better that I help the kids have fun rather than get results, and I think the opposite for adults?  At which point do I flip the switch and start taking the walk?  I feel like I haven't really learned much about baseball.

Don't think: It can only hurt the Ball Club

Baseball has a lot of tired cliches.  One most people know of is that "Baseball is a thinking man's game."  The idea is that because there is a fair amount of guesswork involved with the batter-pitcher faceoff as well as the proper timing of such plays as a bunt, steal, and hit-and run that one needs a certain amount of intelligence to succeed at the game.  I'm curious if so called smart baseball actually leads to success in this day and age.

Let's start off by outlining a few "Smart Baseball" plays.  I'll use this term to loosely define a term in which one makes a conscious decision to go outside the norm (i.e. just hit it/just pitch it) to try to gain an advantage.  Certainly the Sacrifice Bunt/Sacrifice Hit qualify; the team purposefully gives up an out in order to gain a run or move a runner closer to scoring a run.  Going by MLB.com we get the following top 5 for Sacrifice Flies:

1. Minnesota Twins: 74
2. Boston Red Sox: 62
3. Toronto Blue Jays: 56
4. Texas Rangers: 54
5. Tampa Bay Rays: 52

And the rest tail off slowly between 51 and 34.  Now let's look at Sacrifice Hits (mostly likely a bunt, but could also be a sharply hit ball where the only play is at first:)

1. Colorado Rockies: 90
2. New York Mets: 73
3. Cincinatti Reds: 72
4. St. Louis Cardinals: 71
5. Philadelphia Phillies: 71

The teams above who lead the league in Sacrifice Flies seem to have little correlation with doing the same with Sacrifice Bunts, as they ranked 16th, 27th, 18th, 20th, and dead last respectively. Whereas the teams who lead the league in Sacrifice Hits ranked 25th, 9th, 21st, 17th, and 23rd respectively on the list of Sacrifice Flies.  With possibly the exception of the Mets there seems to be little correlation last year of teams actively sacrificing by doing things both ways.

What else constitutes a smart play?  How about the Intentional Walk?  If there is a runner on 2nd and the 2003 version of Barry Bonds approaching the plate with one out and a tie game, it is almost undeniably a smart decision to pitch to whichever inferior hitter is following Bonds that day.  Let's take a look at teams which issued intentional walks to see if they have any correlation there:

1. Atlanta Braves: 80
2. Florida Marlins: 66
3. Philadelphia Phillies: 64
4. Detroit Tigers: 63
5. San Diego Padres: 61

And again the rest trail off between 59 all the way down to 15.  There may be some logic here outside the numbers though.  Perhaps the teams that intentional walk often do so because their pitching staff isn't particularly good.  The Braves had a very weak rotation last year after John Smoltz and the rather inconsistent Jair Jurrjens became their ace.  The Marlins were nothing particularly special on the mound, and one could say the same about the Tigers.  The Phillies and the Padres though are teams known for their pitching.  The Phillies had the strongest bullpen in the league last year, with a closer who never blew a save, and a rotation anchored by Cole Hamels.  The Padres as well had at the very least a decent pitching rotation, which could be called dominant at times when Jake Peavy and Chris Young were healthy.  The bottom of the roation shows us little as well, since the worst team (the Kansas City Royals) had a rather good young pitching staff, with one of the most underrated closers in the game (Joakim Soria.)  This all leads me to believe that Intentional Walks bear little relevance to smart play as well, since there seems to be no corelation between the lists with the aforementioned "smart" sacrifice plays.

This leads me to wonder truly how much thinking is involved in Baseball.  Clearly there are times when a smart decision can help, but I'm failing to find any evidence that smart decisions are made consistently by any particular team.  Perhaps if I ran a study over multiple years and various managers, but at the very least I can conclude that no team seemed to define themselves by their smart plays.  As a fan it makes me curious about real baseball mindsets.  Occasionally I'll hear men in the business say the contrary as well.  I once heard Curt Young (managers of the A's) say in a radio interview that this game isn't as mental as everyone thinks, and Dan Uggla (slugging second baseman of the Marlins) has made it well known that he just looks to hit the ball over the fence every time and never seems to know what kind of pitch he hit or missed.

The point here is this:  Baseball insiders will often say that Baseball is a mental game, and how the complexities are mind boggling and endless.  I would encourage you not to take their word on it.  Though there are good and bad ways to play Baseball, if you're anything like me you'll derive more enjoyment out of thinking about the game and trying to understand their logic (or lack of it) instead of just swallowing it.

What do you think?  Are certain teams or managers more intelligent with their decisions, even if the numbers don't show it?  Is the "smart decision" purely a myth?  Is there a middle ground here?