Zen and the art of infield defense
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 10, 2008 10:01 AM CDT
95 comments
There's been an ongoing discussion about the Rangers' team defense -- and particularly their infield defense -- this season. Most recently, Evan Grant has had a couple of blog posts touching on the issue, earlier in the week saying that improving the range of the shortstop will have no tangible effect on the pitching, and yesterday saying that the Rangers should focus on fixing the pitching before fixing anything else.
Now, towards the end of the season, I had a lengthy post about the problems with the defense and how best to solve it. As I mentioned there, the left side of the infield defense cost the Rangers 30 runs compared to an average infield, based on Dewan's +/-, despite Young having one of his best defensive seasons ever at shortstop. When you combine that with the bad defense you got from Ian Kinsler this year (something that appears to have been primarily referable to errors, rather than balls going for hits) and the first base defense, you're looking at 45-50 runs more than average being allowed by bad infield defense.
Keith Law addressed this same question in a chat session this week:
Too (Legit): How many runs allowed do you think Texas would improve by if they moved Michael Young to 3B and got a good defensive shortstop -- someone like Adam Everett -- to hold down the fort for a year or two until Elvis Andrus is ready?Keith Law: 20.
If Law is correct, and replacing Young with someone like Everett saves you 20 runs defensively, that's the equivalent of about two wins. It drops the team ERA from 5.37 to 5.24.
And if you assume that Young is average defensively at third base, you are probably saving another 20 runs there, meaning that, by moving Young to third base and putting a good defensive shortstop in place, you are looking at shaving .25 of a run off of your team ERA...and that's going to have a pretty big impact. Now, you can argue that there's an offensive dropoff when you replace your third baseman with this generic defensive shortstop, but given that we are talking about Travis Metcalf as the starting third baseman next year anyway, I don't think the offensive difference is significant.
I've talked about the Rays before, but there is an article up that looks a little more closely at the decision both the Rays and the Boston Red Sox made recently to significantly upgrade their defense. Two teams that have historically had poor DERs decided they had to take steps to convert more balls in play into outs. And the results -- particularly for the Rays -- have been dramatic. While their pitching has been a little better this year, the main reason that their team ERA has dropped is that they've had outstanding defense behind their pitchers.
Now, I realize that defensive statistics are a lot less reliable than offensive statistics are. I realize that there's a bigger margin of error. But just about every play-by-play based stat -- PMR, UZR, +/- -- shows Young as having been a bad defensive shortstop since he moved there in 2004. And during that time, the Rangers have consistently been near the bottom in converting balls in play to outs. The Hardball Times shows that the Ranger defense was 61 runs below average this year...I find it hard to believe that at least some of that isn't because of the bad shortstop defense.
And given what a huge hole the defense is in right now, if you can get it just to average -- something I think you'd achieve by sliding Young to third base, getting a good defensive shortstop, and leaving Chris Davis alone at first base -- you are looking at adding 6 wins. That's huge.
Now, if you do that, the Rangers still have to pitch better. That's a given. But I don't think we can separate the two things, and say there's no point in improving the defense until the pitching gets better. Better defense would mean more balls in play turning into outs, which would lead to a lower team ERA, which is going to at least give the appearance of better pitching.
0 recs |
95 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Yeah, but
what have Tampa and Boston ever done?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 10, 2008 10:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
20 Runs
If saving 20 runs are good for two wins, what about the 30 that the staff allowed by hitting men and/or walking them with the bases loaded? (I think that happened about 30 times this year).
I’m not discounting anything in the article, I’m just pointing out that there are small adjustments that can easily be made to this season to make a pretty big swing in games won/lost, if those statistics are to be held as all things equal. Young moving and cutting the bases loaded shenanigans in half could save 35 runs; good for 3-4 additional wins. That seems easy. Now, how do we win the World Series?
by FuturePants on Oct 10, 2008 10:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It happened 27 times
However, if the bases are loaded, there’s a good chance that run is going to score even if you don’t hit the batter or walk him. I don’t think you can just subtract 27 runs on the assumption that we’ll throw strikes and not allow any runs in that situation.
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 10, 2008 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, a 100% deduction isn't reasonable
…that’s why I said 15/30, or 50%. That’s still 14 runs saved. But that also assumes that instead of plunking someone, they don’t hit a bases clearing double…
by FuturePants on Oct 10, 2008 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that much of a reduction...
…is reasonable…
If you’ve got the bases loaded, chances are, that runner on 3rd is going to score.
And the reality is, every team gives up a bases loaded walk occasionally.
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 10, 2008 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chances are
…that he scores when there are less than 2 outs. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that odds are he scores from third period.
by FuturePants on Oct 10, 2008 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This article has a 1 run probability table
Although it is from 1977-1992…my guess is that the probabilities are a little higher now:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 10, 2008 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait a sec...
This isn’t reasonable, but if we had never allowed a BB or HBP with the bases loaded, I think you DO have to count a 100% reduction. That is because after the BB/HBP, you were back in the same situation as you were before: the bases are still loaded and you have the same number of outs.
by NorCalRangersFan on Oct 10, 2008 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point
What would you ask Nolan Ryan: "... as a former pitcher, what would you think about having a useless lug standing out there behind you."
Then I'd tell him that useless lug’s name is Michael Young. -- lonestarJesus
by tricer on Oct 10, 2008 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm smart enough to know
that you’re not right about that, but not smart enough to figure out exactly why.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 10, 2008 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It can't be a 100% reduction
what if he hits a grand slam instead of taking the walk?
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Oct 11, 2008 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shortstops
do you guys have a preference for which SS we (hypothetically) target this offseason?
I am still bullish on Metcalf’s offensive potential, so I have a hard time thinking we will find a SS who can replace his production.
by clark on Oct 10, 2008 10:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
x
I am still bullish on Metcalf’s offensive potential,
Why?
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 10, 2008 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
I certainly don’t have strong statistical evidence to back it up. After his strong defensive play in 2007, I was very eager to see how he performed in 2008 After a torrid spring, he came down with an injury that seemed to affect him long after he returned. His monthly splits show that he gradually emerged from his slump and he ended the season with a burst of power in TX to go along with his stellar defensive play.
I certainly don’t think he could ever be a .300 hitter or a strong OBP guy, but I think (perhaps optimistically) he could settle in as a .270/.320/.450 hitter in the big leagues, with his OPS carried by his power more than anything else.
by clark on Oct 10, 2008 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree the pitching and defense are connected..
.. but I think you have to fix the pitching first. Less balls in play equals less fielder chances to make (or miss) a play. I don’t think moving MY this off-season makes sense until you fix the pitching and can really prove that his defense is a liability.
by mattrpav on Oct 10, 2008 10:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It is proven
to the extent it ever can be proven, that this defense is a liability. I fail to see how improving the pitching would help you prove it. By any measure you want to look at, this defense is atrocious.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
by DJCahill on Oct 10, 2008 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
These are two issues that clearly have to be addressed simultaneously. There’s no reason they can’t be and no reason they shouldn’t be.
by Black Francis on Oct 10, 2008 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
What he’s trying to say is that we have better pitchers then not as many balls will be hit at MY.
"M’s fans are such weenies." - Zywica
by lonestarJon on Oct 10, 2008 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which of course makes no sense at all to me either
"M’s fans are such weenies." - Zywica
by lonestarJon on Oct 10, 2008 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great but then why not...
…also have a better fielding SS there to get to the ones that are hit there?
Physician: Primum non nocere
Batter: First, make no out
by Chad Crudup on Oct 10, 2008 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because that might hurt Mikey's feelings
"M’s fans are such weenies." - Zywica
by lonestarJon on Oct 10, 2008 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Arod and Ripken can move to 3rd...
….then mikey can move too.
by jcir454 on Oct 10, 2008 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No need
To denigrate the player simply because of the truth of the defensive need theory.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Oct 10, 2008 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very true...
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
by Rodney on Oct 10, 2008 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's exactly what we need.
Pitchers who can strike out 27 a game, and never have the ball come close to Mikey or Ian or Hanky
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
by DJCahill on Oct 10, 2008 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll play SS...
…for that team and at the league minimum for life. I totally am cool with $350k to never field a ball.
by FuturePants on Oct 10, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see the rush in moving MY in '09
I think you focus on improving the pitching in ‘09. If it improves, you then take a look at what the defensive stats (and scouts tell you). It is a personnel management/risk assessment decision. If you move MY off SS to 3B in ’09 and your pitching still sucks (and team still loses), what did you gain? More importantly, what do you chance losing by making the change when you didn’t have to? What disruptions does it cause with one of the club house leaders? Do you take a reputation hit as an organization with the players? In ‘09, I see there being more to lose by moving MY, because you still don’t know what you have on the mound.
Also, I wouldn’t use defensive metrics as the only measure of productivity out of the position. What do the scouts (ours and theirs) say about MY’s defense?
by mattrpav on Oct 10, 2008 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why can't you fix both at the same time? Is there...
…some rule that says if you make moves in your infield you are barred from making moves with your pitching staff?
That’s the part of Evan’s argument that’s so ludicrous. Poor pitching is not an adequate excuse for leaving a poor defender at the most important infield position.
Physician: Primum non nocere
Batter: First, make no out
by Chad Crudup on Oct 10, 2008 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does make sense
To move MY regardless what happens to the pitching staff. The very fact you move MY improves the pitching. Improving the pitching through a FA acquisition is difficult and doesn’t have guaranteed results. Moving MY is easy and guarantees better D (or as close to a guarantee as you can get in baseball).
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Oct 10, 2008 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There isn't a guarantee
That moving MY will improve the defense. There are a lot of factors, and there is not a better in-house SS defender that is MLB ready.
by mattrpav on Oct 10, 2008 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does zen figure in to this post?
Did I just miss that?
by spurdynasty on Oct 10, 2008 10:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
For some reason...
…“infield defense” sort of sounded like “motorcycle maintenance” in my head this morning.
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 10, 2008 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully, you won't mind if I re-use the term in the next few weeks
I’ve got a FanPost underway that is titled “zen and the window”
by spurdynasty on Oct 10, 2008 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pirsig
Read this review in the Sunday Times, which prompted a google search leading to this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/nov/19/fiction
Pretty interesting read. Didn’t know about his son. The breakdown scene, in the midst of an obviously intelligent storyline, still disturbs me a little. I still remember the image of cigarettes burning up to his fingers.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Oct 10, 2008 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
EG
How do you answer his argument that the pitching was good in 1996 with an awful defensive shortstop, and bad with Alex at SS? Was this a case of starting pitching overwhelming better/worse infield D?
It’s a simple analysis and that’s probably why it’s hard to dismiss.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Oct 10, 2008 10:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's an idea...
…why not try to be the best you can in ALL areas of run prevention? You know, like allocate your defensive assets the best you can, have as good a bullpen as you can piece together, and try to get your best 5 starters in the rotation.
Physician: Primum non nocere
Batter: First, make no out
by Chad Crudup on Oct 10, 2008 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great thought
But I still wonder how EG’s argument is dismissable.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Oct 10, 2008 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one is dismissing it
But why is it not a good idea to try to have good defense AND good pitching? It seems so freakin’ obvious that the team would be incrementally better with Young at 3B and a good defensive SS in place while you are also improving the pitching.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 10, 2008 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dismiss Grant's argument because...
…it’s the latest in his attempts to tell us that there is nothing wrong with MY’s defense, there’s nothing wrong with his offense, there’s nothing out of line with his contract extension, he had a bad year only because of finger injuries etc. etc. etc.
Physician: Primum non nocere
Batter: First, make no out
by Chad Crudup on Oct 10, 2008 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that is what he is saying;
I think EG is trying to make the point that these factors for SS don’t make as big of a difference, practically, as the stat people are trying to suggest.
by FuturePants on Oct 10, 2008 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And to that I say...
…he’s wrong. Any improvement in the defense will help. ANY improvement at all. I don’t see how allowing even 10 fewer runs a year could be construed as not helping.
Physician: Primum non nocere
Batter: First, make no out
by Chad Crudup on Oct 10, 2008 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's assuming the stats are 100% accurate...
…AND assuming that such a change will in fact save 10 runs a year. I’m just not sure EG agrees with all that.
by FuturePants on Oct 10, 2008 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
The 1996 Rangers, in terms of DER, had a mediocre, a little below average defense.
They succeeded because they didn’t walk anyone and didn’t allow HRs. They had the 4th lowest walk rate in the A.L., and the 2nd fewest homers allowed. The Rangers also had a pretty good defensive outfield, which helped neutralize the effects of a bad left side of the infield.
If the 2009 Rangers allow the 2nd fewest homers in the league and the 4th fewest number of walks, then they’d be one of the best pitching teams in baseball.
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 10, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s interesting this team’s only real success came through improvement in 3TO.
I mean, it kinda takes down the whole idea of better D, which itself is unproven as a factor (and in a larger sample size of years).
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Oct 10, 2008 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the difference...
…between the 2007 Rays and the 2008 Rays.
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 10, 2008 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the 1996 team
would have been even better if they had a better SS. Elster gets remembered for his 99 RBIs, but his OPS+ was only 90. It seems entirely reasonable to me that they could have had just as good a bat there with better defense.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 10, 2008 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that this is really any great revelation or anything
But I can’t help but feel like there really isn’t any true discussion here.
Articles like the one Grant wrote really don’t have anything to do with how to fix the team, or keeping the focus on the pitching. It’s all simply a crusade in support of DFW’s infallable media darling, making sure that Mike Young remains the Derek Jeter (in every literal sense of the comparison) of the ALW until he retires. They don’t care whether or not Young really sucks at shortstop or not, all they know is Mike’s nice to them in the clubhouse and he gives them all the cliches and regurgitated quotes they need to get them through an average season, and they’re going to try and protect that at all costs.
"M’s fans are such weenies." - Zywica
by lonestarJon on Oct 10, 2008 10:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Funny comment
this is from last night’s blogging of the game on Deadspin.
Carlos Ruiz bangs a ground ball into “Derek Jeter backhand” territory, but Furcal instead makes the play that normal humans make, which is just sidestep to the ball and throw it regularly to throw out the lumbering catcher.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Oct 10, 2008 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jon's comment above is stupid
Disagreeing with someone’s point of view is fine and welcomed. Questioning someone’s professional credibility because you don’t agree with the opinion is ridiculous.
You really thinks he cares enough about MY to put his career on the line in a debate that he doesn’t even have to engage in?
by robert_d_wilfong on Oct 10, 2008 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not putting his career on the line
He’s just doing what typical media folk do when they like someone: trying to make them look good. That’s exactly what the New York media does with Jeter, which is why I drew that comparison.
I’m not trying to question EG’s overall credentials as a writer, I’m just saying that on this particular subject, he and the rest of the DFW media (and TR Sullivan of MLB.com) obviously hold a great deal of bias on this subject. Which isn’t anything new for any type of media outlet of course – it’s just that this continued argument makes my head hurt and I don’t really know why we’re arguing over what is clearly media bias.
"M’s fans are such weenies." - Zywica
by lonestarJon on Oct 10, 2008 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
bias
It could also be said that you hold a great deal of bias against MY. He hasn’t been that far below average most years and this year was pretty close to average or even above average in RZR. Evan calls it like he sees it and if his opinion disagrees with yours is not a reason to call him out for biases.
by bushe on Oct 10, 2008 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know, I actually agree with you LSJ
That the hometown media is clearly biased toward MY, but not for the reasons you listed. They’re biased toward him because they know what he means to the average fan (and, vis a vis, ticket sales). They just can’t go around denigrating the guy who has been this team’s biggest draw over the last 5 seasons in any way shape or form, even if he he truly is a liability to the defense unless they want to make enemies in the clubhouse and the organization. The only guys that can do that are the freelancers like Adam and Mike Hindman, who can actually say their piece without having to worry about the negative repercussions affecting their jobs.
by JimBonnick84 on Oct 10, 2008 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
certainly
There is a big difference between a talented commentator that does it for a hobby, versus an equally talented journalist doing it for his/her livelihood.
What would you ask Nolan Ryan: "... as a former pitcher, what would you think about having a useless lug standing out there behind you."
Then I'd tell him that useless lug’s name is Michael Young. -- lonestarJesus
by tricer on Oct 10, 2008 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
That’s defintely a valid point. It’s probably a combination of that and the fact that he’s well-liked by the media, really. Like I said above, he’s the Jeter of the AL West – or at least the Jeter of Texas. He’s kinda replaced Rusty Greer as the Mr. Ranger of this generation of Ranger teams, and as such he will be perpetually defended and overhyped by the media till he retires.
"M’s fans are such weenies." - Zywica
by lonestarJon on Oct 12, 2008 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just let
the infield grass grow longer.
by Back Door Yakker on Oct 10, 2008 10:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily
Both teams play on the same field. If it’s a difficult field to play on then the Rangers should have the advantage since they play on it more. But since their D sucks in the first place there isn’t a real advantage. But say the D improved as proposed, then the short grass could actually turn into a homefield advantage.
This is all theory, opinion and guesswork.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Oct 10, 2008 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assume
This is all theory, opinion and guesswork.
you meant grasswork.
by Back Door Yakker on Oct 10, 2008 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I agree with one thing there...
…the conditions will be the same for both teams. Your defense might get to more grounders but so will your opponent’s.
Physician: Primum non nocere
Batter: First, make no out
by Chad Crudup on Oct 10, 2008 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the Rangers defense and pitchers
presently need help more than the other teams. Worst pitching, worst defense. Who is helped more by slowing the ball?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 10, 2008 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
EXACTLY!!!!
Steal Home R.I.P. 9/10/08
by LAMuscleFag on Oct 10, 2008 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
With Young's bad range...
…the Rangers are helped by long grass. Or is that what you are saying?
by FuturePants on Oct 10, 2008 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think thats the consensus
the slower the players, the slower the grass. The faster the surface, the more good, rangy defenders stand out. So, since we are at a defensive disadvantage to every team on the planet, we want the IF to be a cow pasture.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
by DJCahill on Oct 10, 2008 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The opposing team
If the speed of the infield is basically the same as any other infield, then there are no suprises for the opposing team. But if the infield is quick (and the Rangers are a decent defensive team) then the Rangers gain the advantage because they’re used to the quick infield.
Honestly, the talk about the speed of the infield is, to me, more of an excuse for the defense as opposed to a solution. It’s the media focusing on the counting-stat of errors. Media’s opinion is that if you slow down the infield, Rangers make fewer errors. Probably true. But the other team will also make fewer errors so a slower infield is a zero sum. But a quicker infield with good D could create an advantage for the Rangers.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Oct 10, 2008 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not exactly
I should research this and get back to you but the rangers are one of the best power hitting teams in the majors which generally means that they hit more balls in the air than the other guys so less of the ranger’s hits are made on ground balls compared to the competition. So a fast infield would favor a team that isn’t as good at hitting the ball hard. Of course this is all theory so feel free to disagree.
by bushe on Oct 10, 2008 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's true
And I’m guessing team LD% is out there somewhere to back it up.
How about this – all things being equal for the teams’ hitting and fielding – if the Rangers had a unique i.e. fast infield, they would have the advantage over the opposing team.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Oct 10, 2008 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
logs
when retrosheet publishes its 2008 ML logs I’ll do a study on it for everyone.
by bushe on Oct 10, 2008 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll look forward
to that.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 10, 2008 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many batters
were hit or walked with 2 outs and the bases loaded? The odds are really cut down that the run will score with 2 outs.
by mcgee48c on Oct 10, 2008 11:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
excellent post Adam
I always chime in when I disagree, so it’s only fair that I throw out some commendations when warranted.
"So he tore it up in AA. Yippee. ...Max Ramirez be damned." - bigsteve
by tricer on Oct 10, 2008 11:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff Adam
I look forward to the challenge of attempting to rival your defensive thoughts.
Something worth noting: Everett’s defense has declined roughly 20 plays per year since 2006…it was +41 in 2006, +18 in 2007, and -1 in 2008…perhaps that was largely the product of the fast turf of the Metrodome and Everett not being able to adjust to it, but we can’t ignore that (a) he’ll be 32 on Opening Day and (b) his offense is absolutely wretched.
You can stomach abhorrent hitting from a high-priority defensive position like shortstop if you have a premium, top-tier defender installed there. If you don’t, that’s probably not going to solve much of anything.
by Joey Matschulat on Oct 10, 2008 11:36 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I really liked
Adam’s trade for Hardy scenario. Better gloves at both left side positions, and two decent bats rather than one and a surrender. Surely Melvin admires some of our soon to be scrap heap and lineup value chattel.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Oct 10, 2008 12:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I still like the nuances behind Grant's contention
You don’t really address any of them and rely on assumptions [If KL’s correct … if MY is an avg 3Bman … if the stopgap guy fulfills his potential …] – and there’s this whole xbox MLB2009 feel to moving guys around or bringing in a stopgap that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’m not sure any of your logic relates to the total reality of the situation. You did sorta answer in my mind the REAL effect-ratio of an upgrade to a muthah SS vs an upgrade to a contending pitching staff – about 15-1? Something like that. Risk upsetting the apple cart in 2010, not 2009 – not for a measly percentage gain in lowering runs allowed. Basically, I wouldn’t have a problem if they did it EG’s way. Doing it your way might be more interesting to watch, though. The Devil you know is sometimes better than the Devil you don’t – especially if he’s only haunting you one more written-in-stone non-contending season.
by shroomer on Oct 10, 2008 12:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
World Baseball Classic
Andrus probably will get a great deal of time with the MLers in ST if Young participates in the World Baseball Classic. This would be a good thing.
The Rangers will want to move Young from shortstop in a respectful manner. Let them try it out a few times this spring and a few more times this September. Then, let’s hear what Young has to say.
This year, get a stopgap at 3B, like Blake.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Oct 10, 2008 12:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Blake
I doubt he’ll sign a one year deal.
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 10, 2008 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
MYoung
at 3B would not provide better defense than TMetcalf. He would probably hit better. My point is the only defensive inprovement would be at SS if MYoung is moved to 3B.
by JTodd on Oct 10, 2008 1:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure he wouldn't be better than Metcalf
I don’t see all this defensive greatness in Metcalf that other folks seem. Maybe in comparison to Vazques or Davis.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
by DJCahill on Oct 10, 2008 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
one of Grant's points is
that Elster was terrible in the field, but I don’t remember him as being that bad.
by jcAustin on Oct 10, 2008 2:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
He was a statue
much like Mike Young.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
by DJCahill on Oct 10, 2008 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was pretty bad
and played most of one year with a bad knee, too (IIRC).
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
by Rodney on Oct 10, 2008 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Has anyone
come up with an ideal replacement at SS?
I have heard Everett, but it has been shown that he is regressing both offensively (is it possible) and defensively, so I would pass on that option.
And I have seen Hardy, but that would cost at least two good prospects, and that is a gross misallocation of resources.
I looked over at the available SS’s listed on mlbtraderumors.com, but it was an uninspiring list, to say the least.
I still stand by my proposed Dodgers deal.
by clark on Oct 10, 2008 2:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What about Tony Pena Jr?
Dont laugh…
he is plus plus defensive shortstop right?
Maybe Rudy can get a little more out of the bat.
by tyd3311 on Oct 10, 2008 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
Rudy is not actually a miracle worker. To make up for that bat, he would need to be the best defensive SS in baseball.
by clark on Oct 10, 2008 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andrus...
i know it’s too early, but you could bring him up in July or Aug of ‘09 and let him get his feet wet as a sub (10-20 starts at SS) and then he could try to win the job in ’10. I don’t think Young at SS for most of ‘09 is going to be a huge problem. It’s not worth selling the farm for a year or two of defense at SS (Hardy.)
by jcAustin on Oct 10, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
