Sac Flies: Smart Play?

Assume for a moment that players are trying to hit sac flies and they are not mere accidents or failures at the plate. John Walsh at The Hardball Times took a crack at this question in 2005, in this article. (Note, it does not address the question raised in my early post about why batters would be trying harder to hit sac flies with fewer strikes).

If the batters are trying to hit sac flies, is that smart?

We can use the average run expectation charts for 2007 to determine whether trying a sac fly makes sense.

Situation: 1 out, man on third. The RE for this is .975. If the sac fly succeeds, a run will score (1.0) and there will be two outs. Two outs and noone on base is .107. So if it succeeds, the RE is 1.107. If it fails, either because it doesn't result in a fly ball, or not a fly ball deep enough, there are two outs and a man on third, for an RE of .405.

The breakeven point is (.975-.405)/(1.107-.405) or 81.2%. The hitter has to succeed at least 81.2% of the time for this to be a smart play.

What if the hitter was trying to get a one base hit instead of trying for the sac fly? Assume failure is a strikeout and success is a single. That would be (.975-.405)/(1.528-.405) or 50.8%. Of course, no hitter can be expected to hit a single nearly 51% of the time.

Is it better to try for an 81% success rate on a sac fly, or a 51% success rate on a single? I don't know, but it seems like we'd judge in favor of a sac fly as the number of strikes on the hitter increases, since very few hitters are better with two strikes. Yet the data indicates far less success at sac flies as the strikes pile up.

The analysis is more complex when you factor in that walks, doubles, triples and homers are also safe possibilities for the hitter. Their break even points are: 69.9%, 43.2%, 36.3% and 30.4%. The probability of achieving those depends heavily on the hitter.

And of course, that's just one scenario. If it were men on second and third with no outs, the sac fly break even point would be (2.101-1.467)/(1.724-1.467) or essentially impossible to come out ahead.

Here are the breakeven points for sac flies in all the various base-out states (using 2007 RE):

Runners    Outs     Break Pt.
003          0        Never
003          1        81.2%
023          0        Never
023          1        Never
103          0        Never
103          1        98.9%
123          0        Never
123          1        Never

Even without factoring in the benefits of trying to get a base hit, the sac fly seems to be something you wouldn't attempt as a hitter except with a runner on third and one out. And then, you'd have to be 81% sure that you could do it, as opposed, to say, striking out.

By the way, Tim Kurkjian at ESPN was either bored, or he really likes the sac fly.

Sac Flies

After Chipper's two sac flies yesterday, I got to thinking about them. Really, who gives any real thought to sac flies. Is there a more boring way to score a run? I'm not sure. I think passed balls, wild pitches and errors are more exciting, because they are a surprise. They upset expectations. They make you say "Oh my god."

Sac flies make you frown and switch to another game on MLBtv.com.

I started to wonder if players actually try to hit sac flies to score runs, or if they really represent a failed plate appearance. I find it difficult to believe that a hitter, early in the count, is concentrating on a fly out instead of trying to get a base hit. I would think that players, once they get 2 strikes and the probabilities of a base hit have dwindled, look for a pitch they can get in the air to score the run. It's like saying, "I'm in a hole. I may get a hit, but probably not. How can I salvage this plate appearance? Maybe I can get it in the air deep enough to score the run."

I took a quick look at the 2007 splits so far this year. Here is the list of how many sac flies occurred with 0 strikes, 1 strike and 2 strikes on the hitter, and the plate appearances:

Strikes     SF        PA        Pct.
  0         353      28,753     1.2%
  1         301      34,957     0.8%
  2         272      56,673     0.4%

That's weird. The fewer strikes on the hitter, the better chance of a sac fly. Sac flies may be totally random, or hitters may be trying early in the count to hit a sac fly. Maybe as the number of strikes increase, hitters feel less ability to control the outcome. That is certainly true with respect to getting on base. Perhaps the same phenomenon occurs with sac flies.

Let's try 2006, in case 2007 is an anomaly:

Strikes     SF        PA        Pct.
  0         520      40,653     1.2%
  1         460      53,498     0.8%
  2         416      87,743     0.4%

Exactly the same. This tends to negate the thought that sac flies are random.

Out of curiosity, let's look at Chipper's career sac flies (split data is incomplete before 2000):

Strikes     SF        PA        Pct.
  0          36       2,612     1.4%
  1          24       2,141     1.1%
  2          13       2,954     0.4%

I'm going to have to think about this some more.

Weird Batting Line

You don't see this much: 1 for 1 with 5 RBI, no runs scored, and no walks. That's Chipper Jones' line from today's game. He was pulled in the bottom of the 5th since Atlanta had a 10-0 lead.

You can't get 5 RBI in one plate appearance. The best you can do is 4, with a grand slam, but Chipper didn't score any runs, which rules out the grand slam. He also didn't walk in any runs.

Here are his plate appearances:

1st: Sac fly w/RBI
2nd: Double w/3 RBI
4th: Sac fly w/RBI

That seems unusual.

I found four instances since 1957 of players who had 1 official AB and 5 or more RBI. (Actually, they all had exactly 1 AB and 5 RBI). They also all scored at least one run. In chronological order:

1. Bill Voss (Angels) had a grand slam and a sac fly in a 1970 game against the Royals. He walked twice and scored a run.

2. Mickey Tettleton (A's) had a three run HR and got the other 2 RBI on two walks in a 1986 game against the Yankees. He scored two runs.

3. Candy Maldonado (Indians) had the same line as Tettleton in a 1990 game against the Tigers, except Tettleton scored twice and Maldonado only once.

4. Keith Ginter (A's) had a three run HR and two sac flies in a 2005 game against the Giants. He walked once and scored one run.

I've never heard of Ginter, but he had 971 ABs in the majors, with Houston, Milwaukee and the A's. He was an average player, but average isn't so bad. He managed to amass 25 RBI in only 137 ABs in 2005. Not too shabby. 2005 was a horrible year for him, though. A 497 OPS, and he was out of the majors at age 29. He played for the Triple A team in Sacramento the next year and had an 800 OPS (again, not bad for a middle infielder). He is currently in Buffalo (Indians Triple A) where he is hitting 239/369/411 with 11 HR and 46 RBI. Maybe he'll get a callup if Barfield gets hurt.

Negative Game Scores

Since 1957, there have been only 108 games in which the starting pitcher has earned a negative game score*. Five have occurred this year: Simontacchi (-2), Shields (-3), Feierabend (-4), C.Lewis (-6) and Jon Garland (-11).

The first thing that strikes me here is that in 50 years, there are 108 such games (about 2 a year), but this year we've already got 5, and we are not even 2/3 of the way through the season. The second thing is how bad that Garland score is. Tied for 7th worst in the last 50 years.

But we're going to have another one. Jason Jennings gave up 11 earned runs in the first inning of today's game against the Padres. Although not "officially" computed by Baseballreference.com yet, I've got him with a game score of -11, tying Garland for the worst this year.

That's 6, and counting. We're on pace for 9 of these things, which would represent almost 9% of the below zero game scores since 1957.

*The Bill James Game Score is really a toy to determine how dominant a starting pitcher is on a game-by-game basis. Every pitcher starts the game with 50 points. You add 1 point for each out recorded, and 2 points for each inning (or fractional inning) completed after the 4th. You also add 1 point for each strikeout. Then, subtract 1 point for each walk, 2 points for each hit and unearned run allowed and 4 points for each earned run allowed.

Morgan Ensberg

With the Astros maintaining an illusion of contending for a playoff spot, and acquiring Ty Wigginton, they have designated Morgan Ensberg for assignment.

It reminds me how quickly fortunes change for professional athletes. Two years ago Ensberg was an All-Star, and finished 4th(!) in the MVP voting. Last year there was a dip in production, and most people think he had a bad year. But he was still a useful player. His .235 batting average in 2006 looks bad, but he was still managing nearly a .400 OBP even with that horrible average. The average third baseman in the National League in 2006 had an OPS of 826. Ensberg had an 859.

Less than a year later, and he has no major league job. The average third baseman this year has an OPS of 787, and Ensberg is at only 707, which isn't particularly good at any position.

His fielding has also declined. In 2005 and 2006, he was very good defensively, according to BP's FRAA and FRAR. This year, he's not only below average, he is below replacement level. The wheels have come off.

How? He got hurt last year. He started 2006 on fire, with 17 HR in April and May, with lots of walks. Then he hurt his shoulder. After that, he was basically useless at the plate.

BP 2007 says he is not a favorite of Phil Garner, and predicted he'd be traded. But, BP also thought he'd put up an 850 OPS with 20+ HR. I guess without those numbers, the Astros have no way to move him to another team. The Astros GM indicated that he didn't think Triple A made sense for Ensberg, so I suspect that if he isn't traded in 10 days, he's going to be out of baseball for awhile.

Can anyone use him? You wouldn't think so, if these are indicative of his ability, particularly since he is 31 years old. But check out Minnesota's production at third base. Punto/Rodriguez/Buscher have combined for a VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) of -27.2. That's horrible. It is very difficult to be that bad at a position. Almost anyone would be better.

Ensberg might not improve that, but I hardly see how they could do worse. I guess it depends on how expensive he is. Since homers fly out in Minnesota's ballpark, and Ensberg has a little pop, he might be useful. Minnesota's DHs are also below water in VORP, so he could fill in there too.

Selig and Bonds

Who cares?

I should stop there, but I won't. When I say "Who cares?" I'm referring to Selig's attendance at Giants' games, not Barry's quest. Leaving aside whether you like Barry or not, and whether you want him to pass Hammerin' Hank: (a) it's a big deal and (b) it's going to happen.

Does it matter in the slightest whether the commissioner is there? This isn't the Kennesaw Mountain Landis era. Selig is not a celebrity. I don't think the fans pay attention to ANYTHING he says. Do you really think of Selig as the guy who maintains the integrity of the game?

Maybe Selig, if he were there, would get a 20 second soundbite...and then, gone, lost among all the other soundbites and camera flashes.

Selig's presence, or absence, has absolutely no bearing on the event. It doesn't diminish what Bonds is doing. It doesn't tell us anything more about steroids (if you still care at this point).

I just hope (with all the energy I can muster) that Bonds does not hug someone on the opposing team when he does it, a la' McGwire and Sosa. That made me sick.

Devil Rays Incompetence

I've already written about the horrors of Navarro catching, and suggested Casanova as a replacement -- since he is already on the major league roster. Well, not any more. They sent him down. Yes, he with the .600 slugging percentage will labor in Triple AAA, while Navarro, whose on base percentage and slugging percentage combined is less than Casanova's SLG, remains with the team. Who comes up for Casanova? The previously mentioned, and unimpressive, Josh Paul.

Bad enough, right? Now how about trading away Ty Wigginton, one of the hottest trading deadline properties, for Dan Wheeler? I cannot believe the best the Rays could do for a guy on pace to get about 25 HR and 80 RBI, and who plays five different positions, was swapped for a setup man having a poor season (and who failed in his attempt to unseat a struggling Brad Lidge as the Houston closer).

When will this franchise start making the right moves?

Mistaken Platoon Splits

The Braves have decided to put Kelly Johnson at 2b when they face righties, and Yunel Escobar there when they face lefties.

Let's look at the splits. Johnson definitely ought to play against righties. A 913 OPS from your second baseman is nothing to sneeze at. Escobar is a poor 651 against righties. That portion of the platoon is working.

Now for the lefties. Escobar has a 790 OPS against lefties, which is pretty good. Kelly Johnson, however, has a 789 OPS against lefties -- nearly identical. Assuming that major leaguers hit better when they get lots of at bats, why sit Johnson against lefties when he is just as good as his platoon partner?

Could it be defense? Absolutely not. Escobar is very average defensively. Better than replacement, but -1 FRAA according to BP. Johnson, on the other hand, is superb. He is +16 FRAR and +9 FRAA. That 10 run difference on defense is worth a win.

Why, then, is Escobar playing against lefties? Because he has a very high batting average (.338) against them, and for some reason, that still blinds managers to what's best for the team.

Several books have been written about the Braves eschewing statistical analysis, including one by John Schuerholz ("Built to Win: Inside Stories and Leadership Strategies from Baseball's Winningest GM") and a horribly one-sided Braves-commissioned piece of crap ("Scout's Honor: The Bravest Way To Build A Winning Team" -- one of the worst sports books I've read*).

Perhaps they ought to get on the statistics bandwagon, because they are wasting one of the best second basemen in the game.

*You can read my review of the book at Amazon.com

My Casanova

The D-Rays started Casanova at catcher today, and he homered. Hint hint.

More on Mussina

Delving into baseballreference.com's game details, I looked for all games in Mussina's career in which he earned a Bill James game score of 35 or less. My goal was inning pitch counts. I figured it was unlikely Mussina threw more than 46 pitches in an inning during a game in which he had a pretty good game score. It was also a means of narrowing my search.

Counting last night's games, Mussina has had 71 games with a game score <= 35. I was a little surprised by that number. That's nearly 15% of his starts. In future, I'll have to compare that to another Hall of Fame or near Hall of Fame pitcher to see if that is an unusually high percentage.

If you are going by how many times his game score was <=35 in a season, his worst years were '96, '00 and '05. Those weren't very bad years overall...he finished in the Top 5 Cy Young voting in '96. In fact, prior to this year, Mussina has not had an awful season. At his worst, he is league average, but usually well above.

So far, 2007 is his worst season statistically. And this year he is likely to exceed his previous high of 7 games with a game score of 35 or less, since he already has 5 in 16 starts.

I looked at all 71 of those games, searching for innings in which his pitch count was 35 or higher. Counting last night, there were only 12 such games. (Note, five of the 71 games had no pitch count data, but the pitch count estimator did not indicate that he would have been anywhere near 35 pitches in those five games). Here are those games, in chronological order:

Date      Pitches   Inn      Opp
5-21-93     39    Top 3rd    MIL
6-18-95     38    Bot 1st    DET
4-21-99     35    Bot 4th    TBD
4-21-01     35    Top 4th    BOS
6-5-01      39    Top 2nd    BAL
7-31-02     36    Bot 2nd    TEX
8-6-02      38    Top 3rd    KCR
7-1-03      35    Bot 3rd    BAL
5-29-05     35    Top 1st    BOS
8-3-05      44    Bot 5th    CLE
9-24-06     35    Bot 4th    TBD
7-20-07     46    Top 3rd    TBD

So the top of the 3rd inning last night actually appears to be Mussina's longest inning by pitch count in his 17 year career, topping another tiring inning on August 3, 2005 by two pitches. Hats off to Joe Magrane.

Interestingly, in what was probably his worst outing ever on April 21, 1999 against the Devil Rays (mentioned in my earlier post, and earning his worst game score = 0!), he threw no more than 35 pitches in an inning. In fact, Mussina has five career games with a game score of 10 or lower and only two made the list for high pitch count innings with 35 and 36. High pitch count innings may not correlate well with low game scores, though I imagine they correlate better with low game scores than high ones.

Dioner Navarro

If you don't know who this is, he's the starting catcher for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Don't bother getting familiar with him. He's horrible.

He's hitting .179/.241/.250, for a robust .491 OPS. He's a starting catcher who at the plate is far below replacement level for a catcher. According to BP, he's 12 runs below replacement. Makes you wonder if he's that far below replacement, why don't they replace him? Surely someone in the Tampa Bay minors could manage a .491 OPS.

How does he keep his job? Well, according to BP he's pretty good defensively, at 12 runs above replacement. That gives him a WARP1 of -.1, or essentially replacement level when both hitting and defense are accounted for. But as discussed in the past, it is more widely accepted that fielding should be measured against the positional average, not against replacement. There, Dioner earns a 0. He's average defensively. If you recalculate his WARP1 based on FRAA, instead of FRAR, you get a -1.3 WARP through a bit more than half a season. (Look out Jerry Narron!)

Who can the Devil Rays promote? Let's start at the big club. Raul Casanova, Navarro's backup, has an OPS of .758. His slugging percentage is higher than Navarro's OPS. His defense is a little less robust, but that is made up for by his hitting.

Josh Paul, also with the big club, is not the answer with a .547 OPS. He's been DL'd twice this season, and most recently was put on the 60-day DL on June 3 (and he has not returned).

There are three players at AAA Durham: Hernandez, Johnson and Riggans. Hernandez is the best hitter, turning in an .820 OPS. You have to discount that for league quality. If AAA is 93% of MLB quality, that's still a .763. Johnson, the youngest, would be below replacement level at the plate, b/c he is struggling at AAA. Riggans has had a shot in the bigs (10 ABs, in which he did nothing and then went on the DL), and is only managing a .770 OPS at all levels. He probably isn't the answer.

Down at AA (Montgomery): they've got Jaso, Arhart and Spring (a good name for a catcher). The latter two aren't hitting and Arhart is on the 7-day DL, but Jaso has an .876 OPS, translatable to something like a .770 at MLB. He's outhitting SS prospect Reid Brignac and his OPS is second on the team to consensus Top 10 prospect Evan Longoria. He is slumping since the All-Star break, but I bet we see him in September.

That's at least three real possibilities: Casanova, a major league veteran; Hernandez, the Crash Davis of the system (but really only 28); and Jaso, the 23-year old future.

Mussina's Pitch Count

You hear a lot about pitch counts and whether (or how) they injure arms. Mike Mussina only threw 93 pitches against the Devil Rays tonight. That was in 4 2/3 innings, because Mussina was way off his game.

But most interesting is how many pitches he threw in top of the third. It was a bad inning for him...four runs scored. The damage could have been worse. He went to a full count on 5 hitters in that inning alone, and threw 46 pitches. 46 pitches in one inning?

Joe Magrane said he thought that was probably a record for Mussina. That's probably verifiable if you dig through RetroSheet data, or if you have a subscription to the Play Index at Baseball Reference.com.

Since I don't have time to pour through 15 years of Mussina games on Retrosheet, and have not yet subscribed to the PI at Baseball Reference, I'll speculate.

One common, and fairly accurate, way of estimating pitch counts is the following formula: BFP*3.3 + 1.5*SO + 2.2*(HBP+BB). Mussina faced 10 hitters in the 3rd inning, with one K and three walks. That's about 41 pitches. That means Mussina threw 4 more pitches than we would expect. Not a striking figure.

Has he ever had another inning where he faced 10 hitters and walked at least three? When viewed that way, it seems more likely. I don't know the answer, but Mussina gave up 10 runs in 3 2/3 innings in 1999, facing 24 batters in that short span. He threw 35 pitches in the bottom of the 4th of that game. Against who? The Devil Rays! That included a 9 pitch at bat by Wade Boggs.

That leads me to believe that his 46 pitch inning might not conclusively be the worst he's had in terms of pitch counts. I bet it is a close call.

By the way, Justin Upton hit a monster home run in that inning, off a horrible middle-in pitch from Mussina. In the post-game interview, Upton said it was the longest ball he had ever hit, and he turned it around so fast, he didn't even feel it hit the bat.

Writers with Bad Attitudes...or Just Poor Vocabulary

An AP sportswriter in San Francisco wrote this, about Pujols' complaints that LaRussa did not use him as a pinch hitter:

As if the St. Louis Cardinals needed any more embarrassment in a lackluster season that already featured the alcohol-related death of pitcher Josh Hancock in late April and skipper Tony La Russa's drunken driving arrest during spring training.

Explain to me what is "embarrassing" or "lackluster" to the Cardinals about Hancock's death. So it was alcohol related. Is the Cardinals' front office cowering in shame because of the way Hancock died. Or is it more likely they feel sad? Like maybe they could have done something to help him?

Ichiro (More)

I wonder what Ichiro thought when he was presented with a Chevy SUV hybrid for winning the All-Star MVP award. An American car for a Japanese player.

I bet he thought it was funny that he was being offered a car by a manufacturer that has been consistently substandard to virtually every Japanese auto maker for the last 25 years. Or, perhaps he thought it was interesting that Chevy was hyping hybrid technology, which the Japanese rolled out several years ago.

LaRussa's All-Star Strategy

The National League has men on first and second. LaRussa has to decide whether to let Orlando Hudson face K-Rod, or whether to pinch hit with Albert Pujols. Why would he stick with Hudson over the perennial MVP candidate?

Hudson hits from the left side. K-Rod is right handed, and lefties fare significantly better against him, although still not very well.

Also, Hudson has seen K-Rod before, when Hudson played with Toronto. He was 1-for-4 against K-Rod with two walks and a strikeout. He has an OPS of .750 against K-Rod in 6 plate appearances. Not awe-inspiring, but not a disaster.

Pujols, on the other hand, has faced K-Rod once, and struck out. So maybe sticking with Hudson made sense. I wouldn't, but it worked out. Hudson walked.

Bases are loaded, so now LaRussa's choice is Aaron Rowand, or the perennial MVP candidate. He sticks with Rowand, even though Rowand has the exact same batting history against K-Rod as Pujols, but has never even had an all-star quality season before. Meanwhile, Pujols is widely considered one of the best hitters in the game.

I thought these games were supposed to matter.

Bruce Froemming

Umpires are so overlooked, baseballreference.com does not have an umpire register -- or if it does, I can't find it.

Bruce Froemming is in his last year and was behind the plate in tonight's All-Star game. The Fox commentators mentioned him a couple of times, but why no feature story? Why no interview? He was umpiring games while Tim McCarver was still behind the plate.

Hmmm. Maybe that's why. :)

Froemming began umpiring games in 1971. Can you imagine how many bruises he's gotten over the years? He's seen a lot of great baseball. More than 5,000 regular season games, 32 Division Series games, 52 LCS games, 22 World Series games, and now, his third All-Star game. Out of those 106 post season games, he has been behind the plate only 16 times, but that's primarily because there are 6 umpires in post season games.

In his first All-Star game (1975), he was at third, standing next to Ron Cey and Graig Nettles. The National League won that one behind Reuss and Sutton. The NL scored three runs in the top of the ninth to take the game 6-3. Madlock singled with the bases loaded, scoring two, and Rose hit a sac fly. Hank Aaron made his 24th appearance, tying Stan Musial and Willie Mays, who was honored in tonight's game. Interesting tie-in.

He was behind the plate in the '86 All-Star game. Clemens and Teddy Higuera dominated the first 6 innings. You don't see the starters going 3 innings each anymore. The second basemen did the damage for the AL: Sweet Lou Whitaker and Frank White each homered.

He was umpiring at second base for Gibson's famous World Series home run in 1988. He was at first for Johnny Bench's two homers in game 4 of the 1976 World Series. There are other such moments.

As for no-hitters, he was umpiring at first for the Dennis "El Presidente" Martinez and Kevin Gross games, second for the Bud Smith (who?), Burt Hooton and Darryl Kile games, third for the Phil Niekro and Bob Forsch games, and was behind the plate for Milt Pappas, Ed Halicki, Jose Jimenez (who?) and Nolan Ryan #5.

(Data compiled from Retrosheet)

Ichiro

Which is more amazing?

(a) An inside the park home run in the All-Star game

(b) Ichiro hitting the inside the park home run and scoring standing up

(c) Ichiro loafing out of the batter's box

(d) All three combined.

The answer is (d). As rare as inside the park home runs are, I imagine it is even more rare for the hitter to score standing up. Ichiro apparently thought he hit it out of the park, though, because his first few steps were a home run trot. And he still scored standing up!

By the way, the lifetime leader in inside-the-park home runs belongs to Jesse Burkett, with a whopping 56. Of course, he played at the turn of the century. Next on the list are Sam Crawford, Ty Cobb, Tommy Leach, Honus Wagner, Tris Speaker, Jake Beckley, Rogers Hornsby, Jake Daubert and Edd Roush. It says something that Hornsby is the most recent player on the list, and he retired 70 years ago.

UPDATE: In the post game sort-of-interview, Ichiro said he thought he hit the ball out of the park.

Hargrove and Narron

Mike Hargrove

Hargrove walks out on the team when it is finally turning things around. On the one hand I have some sympathy, because something weird is obviously going on with Hargrove personally (though he said it was nothing big). On the other hand, this team -- which is not tremendously talented -- is finally playing good baseball, and he drops out in the middle of the season.

Even Jose Guillen liked him.

Jerry Narron

Jerry Narron gets fired by the Reds. How did he get that job anyway? I guess if you spend enough time as a backup catcher, you've got a shot at managing bad ballclubs.

He was just a placeholder. There was nothing notable about his tenure, except that he was set up to be the scapegoat for bad front office decisions the last couple of years.

I remember a Narron baseball card from when I was a kid. Back when Topps had a monopoly. He had a pitiful pose. A kind of half-assed batting stance. Hmmmm.

Hargrove vs. Narron

I don't think Baseball Reference.com should first show Hargrove's managerial stats when you search for his name, before showing his playing stats. He was a better player than a manager. Career OPS+ of 121 isn't half bad, with two years in the 140s. He could also pick it at first.

I have no advice for Baseball Reference.com about whether Narron's managerial or playing record should appear first when you search for him. Theoretically, the answer is neither, but that's not practical.

Narron's best OPS+ was a 74 (63 for his career). He only had as many as 200 AB in one season. A miserable hitter. He accumulated a WARP3 of 0.9. That's right: 0.9 is his career total! Five of his 8 seasons were negative WARP3.

Did he make up for it with defense behind the plate? Defense alone would have given him about 2 WARP, so his hitting wiped out 1.1 of that. But that's if you use his fielding above replacement. Most people agree that fielding ought to be judged against average, and there he would have a -2.7 WARP. So if you use that figure, his career would be about 3.6 wins below replacement. The catching position must have been real thin in the early 80s.

ESPN Sunday Night Baseball: MIN @DET

Hawking for Ernie Harwell

I have no problem with John Miller and Joe Morgan interviewing Ernie Harwell during the game. I'm not particularly impressed with Harwell, but he's in the broadcaster's wing of the Hall of Fame -- which is pretty much automatic if you stay on the air long enough. Still, he's been around baseball. He has stories to tell.

Sadly, Harwell wasn't there to talk about his broadcasting career. Nor was he there to call the game for a couple of innings. He was there to hawk his 4-CD set of game calls and interviews. John Miller became the spokesmodel for Harwell when he turned to the camera, positioned the CD set carefully in front of the camera, and told us where we could order it on the Web. He embellished it with a story that he bought the CD set for himself last November -- which I do not believe.

That was a little irritating. But then the next inning, they did it again. There were three separate mentions of Harwell's web site so we could buy the audio set. Whatever happened to doing interviews for free?

Peter Gammons

Peter Gammons, arguably the most knowledgable baseball reporter in the last 30 years, worked the dugout during the telecast. He was used twice. First, he interviewed Johan Santana, which is a perfectly valid use of Gammons. It wasn't particularly insightful, but Gammons did not have much time.

The second, and last use of Gammons, was in connection with another ESPN product tie-in. John Miller, out of the blue, in the middle of the telecast, starts talking about the iPhone. He engages Joe Morgan in a conversation about the iPhone. Then it gets worse. Down to the dugout for a report from Peter Gammons...whose baseball intelligence is wasted as he tells us that Justin Verlander was able to pick up an iPhone when everyone else had trouble finding one. Why? Gammons says Verlander is smarter than everyone else because he went to the Apple store. What's so brilliant about that?

Moreover, what the hell does it have to do with baseball, and why is the best baseball reporter of my lifetime talking about the iPhone? Gammons was on the air for about 2 minutes for the whole game, and about 1/2 of that was pushing the iPhone.

No wonder I've been watching MLB TV exclusively.