It seems as though Wakamatsu is a saber stats guy too...it's about time the Mariners embraced the 21st century.

Curious as to what you thought of my skepticism regarding the hiring of Wakamatsu in one of your previous posts, Larry...I see a troubling pattern over the recent years and am wondering what your take is on it.

bubba - when japanese ownership has reached into baseball operations, it hasn't worked any better than when the ownership of most teams has.
signing kenji johjima to a three-year extension was the wrong move at a bad time last april.
that said, the new GM was given total autonomy in this hire, and wakamatsu was his man.

haven't seen their "loss" report yet (and I'll view it with a jaundiced eye when I do, there are some rather arcane tax rules that uniquely benefit MLB owners), but I wonder if Kenji's contract can be equated with their "loss"?

His guy walking every time example seems very flawed. Sure getting on base is great, total bases are great, but as you saw with the massive amount of walks Bonds had several years ago... it still doesn't translate to a tremendous amount of runs unless you have good hitters in all three spots behind you.

Bonds walked 232(!!!!!) times in 2004 yet only scored 129 runs. over 1/3 of his runs scored were because of himself via homeruns he hit (45). He had 90 hits that year that were not homeruns. So he reached base just off of hits (that weren't hr's) and walks around 330 times. Yet on those 330ish times reaching base (I'm not counting hbp or getting on via a strikeout, fielder's choice, etc.) he scored a total of 84 runs. That means that he scored about 1/4 of the time when he reached base on something other than a HR.

Now think about this.... he had 30 extra base hits besides the 45 homers. So that means that he had 232 walks and 60 singles. 292 times where he reached first base only and scored 84 times (including his non-homer extra base hits). He was MORE likely to score on those where he advanced past first base on a hit (and of his total hits... 75 of them were for extra bases).

I don't think walking every time at bat is much more valuable (if any) than a season like Bonds had in 2004.

I see the author's point and he brings interesting stuff up, but using his crazy example (which would never happen EVER. Nobody will ever walk every time they are up, or even probably come close to Bonds numbers again) then walks are very important, but I think the Bonds discussion above sort of takes some wind out of it if I am explaining myself correctly.

I agree that the "Big three" are overrated stats. But his way of trying to convince me is a bit off. Yes, walks are important, total bases are important, but the ultimate goal is to generate runs. That requires that you get on base, that you steal bases, that you have others that hit behind you, and that you run bases wisely. The key is to assemble a lineup that is capable of getting on base AND moving guys across the plate. However you do it is great, but acting as if a guy who has a .400 obp is not as valuable as a guy who walks more often than a guy who has that same .400 obp but gets on via hits is a bit of overkill.

Shark, excellent points. I think the deal is that virtually any stat is going to be a proxy. Successful teams do as you describe. Unfortunately, there is no sure-fire way of quantifying that activity statistically, so you go with the best proxy you can, recognizing it will be flawed to some extent.

Makes for interesting discussion though.