PDA

View Full Version : Greene? Really?



UPRedsFan
11-04-2008, 09:24 AM
The other thread discussing the Reds as a potential trade partner with SD for Greene has me puzzled. His OBP is so poor. If the interest is in his defense, why not just give Janish the job and save the money and the prospects for other deals? I've read the thinking that his power numbers would increase in GABP. But do we really want another out machine who hits 20 home runs in the lineup? Are there not better options?

Can someone convince me Greene would be a good addition?

kpresidente
11-04-2008, 09:41 AM
It's like signing Corey Patterson because of his defense. Actually, Greene doesn't even play great defense. I absolutely hate it. I'd rather just go with Keppinger at SS. 50-75 points of OBP is not worth 30 outs in the field.

OBP is also the reason I'm not big on Beltre. Is he a $10 million + prospects upgrade over EE if he saves you 50 hits but gets on base 25 fewer times?

UPRedsFan
11-04-2008, 09:50 AM
Good analogy on Patterson. Maybe not quite as bad as Corey offensively, but you're right it's close.

kpresidente
11-04-2008, 10:36 AM
Good analogy on Patterson. Maybe not quite as bad as Corey offensively, but you're right it's close.

3-Year OBP | SLG
Greene - .291 | .427
Patterson - .289 | .395

...but Patterson will swipe some bases so I think it's a push.

The difference is Patterson actually does give you good defense, and Greene isn't even league-average. If they get Greene, the fans will be ranting about it mid-season just like we were with Patterson. These are exactly the kinds of moves that kill us.


Here's another way to look at it...

WIN SHARES ABOVE BENCH

Gonzo (2007) = 2
Keppinger = 0
Greene = -4

Encarnacion = 3
Beltre = 3
Atkins = 0

So Greene is a downgrade from Keppinger, and Beltre vs. Encarnacion is a push, with Atkins as a downgrade. Yeah, let's go trade the farm and run up the payroll 20-25 million for those guys!

redsfandan
11-04-2008, 11:09 AM
nice post kpresidente. i wouldn't have expected those #'s for those 3rd basemen. makes EE look a little better.

kpresidente
11-04-2008, 11:25 AM
nice post kpresidente. i wouldn't have expected those #'s for those 3rd basemen. makes EE look a little better.

That's not defenseive win shares, in case you read it as such. It's WSAB, which measures offense and defense combined.

The defensive win shares look like this...
Gonzo (2007) - 3.6
Keppinger - 3.5
Greene - 3.7

Beltre - 3.1
Encarnacion - 2.3
Atkins (2007) - 2.2

Atkins had a 3.1 in 2008, but split his innings between 1B and 3B, so his 2007 number is more idicative. It's also in-line with his career #s at 3B. He's on the same level of suckitude as EE. Also, Gonzo's fielding #s were a career low. He's normally around 6-7. His age could account for some of that drop, but not all, I think. I still believe he's unquestionably better than Greene/Keppinger in the field.

redsfandan
11-04-2008, 11:50 AM
add in how much greene will make in '09 and it's hard for me to be interested. i'd prefer everett or eckstein as a cheap backup for '09 and look for a top ss prospect.

EE looks like a nice value compared to the other two though. i'd also be less surprised by an improvement by EE than by beltre/atkins. maybe beltre will produce in a contract year. who knows. i just hope EE's throws improve. iirc, he did better with risp before last year so i wouldn't be surprised if that improved some too.

Mitri
11-04-2008, 12:45 PM
Greene is a younger version of Gonzalez with more pop and upside. I think he'd be a slight improvement over the in-house options (not including a Phillips to SS move) both offensively and defensively as it is, and could be a candidate for a nice bounce-back season.

I believe it's Greene's .468 slugging in '07 that is intriguing. That in cavernous San Diego (12 HR's at home that year) is pretty impressive for a little guy like Greene. He has pop, and it is pop that actually translates into SLG, unlike Patterson. Sure, he's OB% deprived and not a total whiz in the field, but could be an improvement over Gonzalez or Janish, and could see a bump in GAB and a change-of-scenery scenario.

I'd be interested in Greene only if the only options the Reds have are Janish and Gonzalez and the price is right.

Edit: he's owed 6.5 Mill in '09 and seems to be on poor terms with SD, so I don't think it'd take much. A potential Gonzalez/Greene swap could be done if the Reds threw in a prospect.

757690
11-04-2008, 01:53 PM
Greene would be a solid upgrade for the Reds at short, if he is healthy, and that is the key. He had a terrible 08, but many players have one bad year, and then recover and have a solid career.

As Mitri pointed out, he plays in one of the worst hitters parks in the majors. His road numbers, including the terrible 08 are:

.270 .318 .484 .802

In GABP, he should come close to those numbers if healthy.

That is a huge improvement over Gonzalez career overall #'s

.248 .295 .399 .695

Defensively, he would be solid, but not great at SS. He would be much better than Keppinger, and probably as good as Gonzalez, if he is healthy. Greene was rated as a +7 in 2007 Fileding Bible which put him in the top 10 in the majors. The key is that he is a solid everyday SS with years of experience there, which is what the Reds need. A stable defensive SS.

His salary is definitely too high, but that just means that he should be available for very little in return.

He's not my first choice, but he is definitely on my short list of SS candidates for the Reds next year.

Keystone12
11-04-2008, 02:36 PM
I'd rather have Willie Greene.

nemesis
11-04-2008, 03:14 PM
He could probaly be had for Richar or Valakia and Roenicke. They would need a SS to replace him and Richar can play it. He would add speed to the top of their lineup. I truly belive Valakia has little or no future with this team. He need to be switched to second and we already have 2 similar options at that postion in Turner and Frazier. I also think Roenicke would fair much better IMO as a flyball pitcher in Petco vs. GABP and being from SoCal he'd probaly welcome the trade.

I think it's worth a one year gamble. If he hits .275 20 70 .770 he'd be worth every penny. How many people in here would laughed you off the board if you told them that Barlett woulda been the piece that put TB in the WS?

We tend to forget that sometimes there is so much more to baseball than raw numbers. I say go for it.

bgwilly31
11-04-2008, 04:35 PM
I heard this on wlw today.

The guy had a god awful season at the plate last year.

His defense is good But not GREAT.


OBP sucks.


IMO keep kepp and jarnish over that.

Phillips Head
11-04-2008, 05:03 PM
Alright, well since I am the only credible source on Greene seeing as how I'm the only one who watches Greene on a daily basis (I live in San Diego), it's not his glove, but his bat is the reason I wouldn't want Greene. When healthy, he could conceivably hit 30 HRs at GABP, but EVERYONE is wrong about his glove. As much as I don't really care for Greene, he has an OUTSTANDING glove. Watch film of him and you will be impressed. He has excellent range and makes several highlight reel plays that go unnoticed simply because he's not flashy like Phillips, and because he plays for the Padres.
So dismiss the notion that he has a bad glove, because that is completely false. He does not get on base consistently enough for an everyday hitter. If we are really looking to shore up our middle defense, then Greene is a pretty good option, but only if we're willing to sacrifice a .230 hitter for a above average glove at short.

Mitri
11-04-2008, 05:14 PM
Sounds about right. Solid glove, low OBP but plenty of pop. You could see both is slugging and on-base skills improve in the NL Central. Could actually complement a guy like Hanigan (gets on base more, less slugging oriented) at the bottom of the lineup.

redhawk61
11-04-2008, 06:34 PM
Lets look at it this way, A-Gon:

Three seasons before Reds:
2004-.232/.270/.419
2005-.264/.319/.368
2006-.255/.299/.397

then comes into GABP
2007-.275/.325/.468 All career highs except average when he hit .277 in 1999

So with Green we get someone very similar offensively with added power and equal defense. Also a guy w/o knee issues and 2 years younger, and a buddy for Bronson

JayBruceFan
11-04-2008, 07:02 PM
No thanks

The only thing this guy can hit are storage bins with his hand

Gamble
11-04-2008, 07:34 PM
I would rather see the Reds keep their talent and sign Orlando Cabrera.

kpresidente
11-04-2008, 10:38 PM
I would rather see the Reds keep their talent and sign Orlando Cabrera.

The thing about the FAs is there's always a long-term contract involved. None of these guys are good enough to be our long-term answer.

After reading some of the responses, I'm backing off my distaste for Greene somewhat. His defensive numbers are pretty good, and I think he really could show some power here. The OBP makes me sick to my stomach, but what are you going to do?

The contract's really not that bad, either. It's a one-year rental and 6.5 million isn't going to break the bank.

All things considered, I see this as a small upgrade. It comes down to what San Diego wants in return. There are 4 other teams out there and if any kind of bidding war breaks out, the Reds need to be the first team out of the race.

kpresidente
11-04-2008, 10:46 PM
Here's my guy for SS...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fontemi01.shtml


He platoons with Keppinger and between the two of them we get a .380-.400 OBP and about a .500 SLG batting in the #2 hole. Yes, his defense is bad, just as bad as Keppinger's, but with that kind of OBP, I really don't care. Whatever outs we lose in the field, we'll more than make up for at the plate.

That platoon might also work at 3B, although Fontenot hasn't seen much time there. Or you could put the pair at 2B and move Phillips. Several options there.

His contract is nothing, and I bet he could be had for fewer prospects than Khalil Greene. Maybe Rosales and Maloney would do the trick. Those are two guys with no future in Cincinnati.

Mitri
11-04-2008, 10:54 PM
Just say no to Cabrera. An aging shortstop is the last thing this team needs, and his skills have been dwindling for a couple of years.

He could probably get as much done with the bat as Greene but this team needs a real live SS with a youngish body, a guy who can pick it left and right every day.

I'm not even saying Greene is that guy. But I know most if not all the free agent SS's are not.

757690
11-05-2008, 05:28 AM
Here's my guy for SS...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fontemi01.shtml


He platoons with Keppinger and between the two of them we get a .380-.400 OBP and about a .500 SLG batting in the #2 hole. Yes, his defense is bad, just as bad as Keppinger's, but with that kind of OBP, I really don't care. Whatever outs we lose in the field, we'll more than make up for at the plate.

That platoon might also work at 3B, although Fontenot hasn't seen much time there. Or you could put the pair at 2B and move Phillips. Several options there.

His contract is nothing, and I bet he could be had for fewer prospects than Khalil Greene. Maybe Rosales and Maloney would do the trick. Those are two guys with no future in Cincinnati.


Kpres- you do nice work and I appreciate the effort you put into trying to find answers the Reds needs. However....

SS is the most important defensive position on the field. It's importance can not be measured by any fielding stat, or any compilation of stats. Having a solid fielding SS results not just in less errors, or more plays made, it leads to less pitches being thrown by the pitchers, having a starter go deeper into games, using the bullpen less, letting pitchers have confidence in allowing the batter to make contact, less AB's for the opposing lineup which means that the best hitters hit less often, less stress on the rest of the defense, and so much more.

Look at this chart 5405

It is the Reds defensive rating as a team over the last 10 years. It shows that defense matters. Big time. The Reds do not at all need offense from their SS. That has not been the problem. They need steady, solid defense. Fontenot is not the answer, not at all.

redsfandan
11-05-2008, 07:34 AM
the opinions on him seem mixed and now i'm not sure either. take this with a grain of salt but this does point out some stuff to include in the discussion:


Padres put Greene on trade block 11/04/08 9:52 PM EST
Shortstop's frustrating 2008 season ended with broken hand By Lyle Spencer / MLB.com

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081104&content_id=3664241&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp

DANA POINT, Calif. -- If ever a quality Major League player in the prime of his career appeared in need of a change of scenery, Khalil Greene fits the profile. The Padres apparently have recognized this in making Greene, one year away from free agency, available in trade discussions.
At 29, with five Major League seasons behind him, Greene has a higher career slugging percentage on the road than Matt Holliday -- .484 to .455. The Padres shortstop plays a more important position than the Rockies' formidable left fielder, at a high level of proficiency.

This isn't to suggest that Greene is as valuable as Holliday. The point is, Greene is a gifted, proven talent, and he's on the market in the wake of a frustrating season that ended when he punched a storage chest on July 30 at PETCO Park, fracturing his left hand. The Padres have filed a grievance seeking to reclaim $1.47 million of his $4.5 million salary for 2008, claiming the injury was self-inflicted. That can't do much for their relationship with the 2002 first-round Draft choice (13th overall) from Clemson.

Clubs have expressed interest in Greene, Padres general manager Kevin Towers acknowledged Tuesday, adding that a deal could be connected indirectly with a potential trade involving San Diego ace Jake Peavy.

The Padres are exploring a Peavy deal with as many as seven clubs, five in the National League, Peavy's strong preference. Towers reported nothing new on that front Tuesday at the General Managers Meetings in an Orange County resort hotel.

If the Padres are able to claim a shortstop in a package for Peavy, such as the Braves' Yunel Escobar, it would alleviate the need to get one in return for Greene. The Reds, Orioles and Tigers are among those who have reportedly inquired about Greene.

"It may be better keeping [Greene] and getting a couple of [compensation] Draft picks," Towers said. "Or, maybe get some pitching back and sign a free-agent shortstop. Or, Khalil's situation could be tied to a Peavy [trade]. If a shortstop comes back in a Peavy thing, it'd be easier to move Khalil."

Towers added that it is unlikely Peavy and Greene will be involved in the same deal.

Greene's 2008 season was by far the worst of his Major League career. He batted .213 with 10 homers and 35 RBIs in 105 games, dropping his career average to .248. His 100th strikeout, after he'd been struck on the shin by a foul ball, prompted his dugout explosion on July 30 -- a rare display by a cool, collected athlete known for masking his
emotions.

Just one year earlier, Greene had helped drive the Padres to 89 wins and a memorable tiebreaker game in Denver, the loss ending their season. He delivered eight homers and 23 RBIs in 28 September games, finishing the season with 27 homers and 97 RBIs.

Frustrated, like so many Padres hitters, by PETCO Park's vast dimensions and thick marine layer, Greene is a .225 career hitter at home in 337 games, compared to .270 on the road in 322 games.

Holliday, who reportedly could be moved by Colorado with free agency a year away, is a .357 hitter at Coors Field and a .280 hitter on the road. Greene has outhomered Holliday, 50-44, in career road games and produced two more RBIs (178) in 17 fewer games.

"I think he's underrated," Towers said of Greene. "When he stayed healthy [in 2007], he had a good year. He came close to 30 homers and driving in 100 runs, and you don't see many middle infielders doing that. He's playing in a tough park where it's difficult to post numbers.

"He's one of the elite defenders in the game. He's never won a Gold Glove, but he probably doesn't put up the offensive numbers to get a Gold Glove."

Greene, who is guaranteed $6.5 million for 2009, turned down a four-year, $29 million extension last winter. He earned $3.3 million across his first four seasons in San Diego.

Extremely popular with Padres fans for his spectacular style in the field and self-effacing manner off the field, Greene ran second to good friend and former Minor League teammate Jason Bay of the Pirates in the 2003 National League Rookie of the Year balloting. Playing 139 games, Greene batted a career-high .273.

Lyle Spencer is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

obviously a Gm will talk up a player whether it's true or not. his ops was 109 pts lower away fom petco last year but by all accounts it was an off year for him. over his entire career it is 144 pts higher. and this is what he has done at our park in his career (12 games/52 abs) in a lineup that isn't exactly loaded:

Great American .327 .357 .615 .973

greene is also a righthanded batter which everyone agrees we could use. considering the relationship between greene and the padres is strained and that the padres seem to want to shed payroll i have to wonder how much the padres would really insist on in a deal. and if he could possibly be a good buy low candidate.

kpresidente
11-05-2008, 10:31 AM
Kpres- you do nice work and I appreciate the effort you put into trying to find answers the Reds needs. However....

SS is the most important defensive position on the field. It's importance can not be measured by any fielding stat, or any compilation of stats. Having a solid fielding SS results not just in less errors, or more plays made, it leads to less pitches being thrown by the pitchers, having a starter go deeper into games, using the bullpen less, letting pitchers have confidence in allowing the batter to make contact, less AB's for the opposing lineup which means that the best hitters hit less often, less stress on the rest of the defense, and so much more.

Look at this chart 5405

It is the Reds defensive rating as a team over the last 10 years. It shows that defense matters. Big time. The Reds do not at all need offense from their SS. That has not been the problem. They need steady, solid defense. Fontenot is not the answer, not at all.


The Cubs played Ryan Theroit as SS, who's worse than Keppinger. They won the division. He had a .387 OBP.

The Reds had a winning record with Hairston in the line-up...playing SS. He had a .384 OBP.

So, yes, a .380-.400 OBP is what we need. What we don't need is Corey Patterson part II.

We have a defensive SS. If offense doesn't matter, just play Janish. He might be able to manage a .300 OBP. I'm not sure Greene could.

We had a terrible defense last year, but will upgrade the OF at least, by default, so things will already be better.

We had a terrible team OBP last year, but lost our best hitter and have yet to replace him, so things will be worse.


It's a matter of outs. How many does the player get you vs. how many does he cost you. What you need to win in baseball is good starting pitching, OBP, and small contracts. I care about defense after those are established. I'd love to have Jimmy Rollins as much as the next guy, but he's not available.

schmidty622
11-05-2008, 11:03 AM
[QUOTE=kpresidente;1758609]Ugh.

The Cubs played Ryan Theroit as SS, who's worse than Keppinger. They won the division. He had a .387 OBP.

The Reds had a winning record with Hairston in the line-up...playing SS. He had a .384 OBP.

So, yes, a .380-.400 OBP is what we need.

We have a defensive SS. If offense doesn't matter, just play Janish. He might be able to manage a .300 OBP. I'm not sure Greene could.

We had a terrible defense last year, but will upgrade the OF at least, by default, so things will already be better.

We had a terrible team OBP last year, but lost our best hitter and have yet to replace him, so things will be worse.


It's a matter of outs. How many does the player get you vs. how many does he cost you. What we need is better OBP all around and a 5th starter./[QUOTE]

See Thread: "Swisher???" for an answer for those two issues. Although not a answer for the Catcher Issue.

kpresidente
11-05-2008, 12:07 PM
nm

Emin3mShady07
11-05-2008, 01:30 PM
Ugh.

The Cubs played Ryan Theroit as SS, who's worse than Keppinger. They won the division. He had a .387 OBP.

The Reds had a winning record with Hairston in the line-up...playing SS. He had a .384 OBP.

So, yes, a .380-.400 OBP is what we need. What we don't need is Corey Patterson part II.

We have a defensive SS. If offense doesn't matter, just play Janish. He might be able to manage a .300 OBP. I'm not sure Greene could.

We had a terrible defense last year, but will upgrade the OF at least, by default, so things will already be better.

We had a terrible team OBP last year, but lost our best hitter and have yet to replace him, so things will be worse.


It's a matter of outs. How many does the player get you vs. how many does he cost you. What you need to win in baseball is good starting pitching, OBP, and small contracts. I care about defense after those are established. I'd love to have Jimmy Rollins as much as the next guy, but he's not available.
Theriot is actually a lot better at shortstop than Keppinger. Theriot had an RZR 26 points higher than keppinger and according to BP, Theriot was 5 runs above average and keppinger was 10 runs below, and that was in limited action. Also, the Cubs had one of the best lineups in the National League, and once they traded for harden, one of the best rotations. Theriot was part of their success as a team, but even if they had Orlando Cabrera at SS, who had a .343 OBP, I still expect they would have won the NL central

kpresidente
11-05-2008, 02:36 PM
Theriot is actually a lot better at shortstop than Keppinger. Theriot had an RZR 26 points higher than keppinger and according to BP, Theriot was 5 runs above average and keppinger was 10 runs below, and that was in limited action. Also, the Cubs had one of the best lineups in the National League, and once they traded for harden, one of the best rotations. Theriot was part of their success as a team, but even if they had Orlando Cabrera at SS, who had a .343 OBP, I still expect they would have won the NL central

I don't use Keppinger's numbers from last year because I think he was rushed back from the injury. 2007 is more indicative.

Theriot may have had a good year last year, but his previous years are -4 and -6 FRAA.

757690
11-05-2008, 03:10 PM
Ugh.

The Cubs played Ryan Theroit as SS, who's worse than Keppinger. They won the division. He had a .387 OBP.

The Reds had a winning record with Hairston in the line-up...playing SS. He had a .384 OBP.

So, yes, a .380-.400 OBP is what we need. What we don't need is Corey Patterson part II.

We have a defensive SS. If offense doesn't matter, just play Janish. He might be able to manage a .300 OBP. I'm not sure Greene could.

We had a terrible defense last year, but will upgrade the OF at least, by default, so things will already be better.

We had a terrible team OBP last year, but lost our best hitter and have yet to replace him, so things will be worse.


It's a matter of outs. How many does the player get you vs. how many does he cost you. What you need to win in baseball is good starting pitching, OBP, and small contracts. I care about defense after those are established. I'd love to have Jimmy Rollins as much as the next guy, but he's not available.

Double UGH


If you care about outs, then you should care about defense. If your defense can't make outs, than you will lose. The Cubs had a very strong defensive team, including Theriot at SS.

Let's put it this way. The key to baseball is that you get three outs to score runs in every inning. If a team is given four outs, they will score significantly more runs than if given just three. That includes not just errors, but not getting to balls hit to your position. Fontenot as a starting SS would give the other team four outs at least once a game. That is going by his range factor at 2B, which is over one full chance below league average. At SS it would be even worse. And that would be huge. If the other team only scored one run half the time, that is 81 runs at least that he would be responsible for. And that is a very conservative estimate. There is no way his high OBP makes up even half of that.

If you care about outs, you need to care about defense.

kpresidente
11-05-2008, 05:13 PM
You're taking his RFg, not his RF/27. That's deceiving because a backup like Fontenot often bats once and gets credited with a game played. His RF/27 was only 0.4 chances below league average, not a full chance. Now, I don't believe that one out = 1/2 run, but even if I accept that, you're looking at 32 runs, not 81.

BTW - you really can't run the numbers this way because there are more TC in a game than outs...an assisted play results in 2 TC (1 assist, 1 PO) and only 1 out, so the run value of each TC is exaggerated. But it's OK for arguments sake....

Now, offensively, I don't know what the average SS produces, but a Fontenot/Keppinger platoon (8.05 RC/27) would net you about 90 more runs than Khalil Greene based on his 2008 (2.9), and about 60 more than his career figures (4.4).

757690
11-05-2008, 06:47 PM
You're taking his RFg, not his RF/27. That's deceiving because a backup like Fontenot often bats once and gets credited with a game played. His RF/27 was only 0.4 chances below league average, not a full chance. Now, I don't believe that one out = 1/2 run, but even if I accept that, you're looking at 32 runs, not 81.

BTW - you really can't run the numbers this way because there are more TC in a game than outs...an assisted play results in 2 TC (1 assist, 1 PO) and only 1 out, so the run value of each TC is exaggerated. But it's OK for arguments sake....

Now, offensively, I don't know what the average SS produces, but a Fontenot/Keppinger platoon (8.05 RC/27) would net you about 90 more runs than Khalil Greene based on his 2008 (2.9), and about 60 more than his career figures (4.4).


Those were Fontenot's #'s for 2B, and you are talking about him at SS. Who knows how horrible he would be at SS? I don't want to find out. And I agree with you that these fielding stats are not the best way to figure out the value of a defender, but that is because fielding has so many side effects, like the ones I mentioned earlier, that you have ignored. Here is the list again.


Having a solid fielding SS results not just in less errors, or more plays made, it leads to less pitches being thrown by the pitchers, having a starter go deeper into games, using the bullpen less, letting pitchers have confidence in allowing the batter to make contact, less AB's for the opposing lineup which means that the best hitters hit less often, less stress on the rest of the defense, and so much more.

But let's use your number of 32 more runs given up on defense, which is more than generous.

Now let's address the offensive side. You talk about a Kepp/Fontenot platoon, but they both do well against lefties, so why platoon them? And does your Fontenot/Kepp platoon factor in that one will be batting against lefties and one against righties? If not, the numbers are meaningless. You just would have two guys to split time against lefties and no one to play against righties.

You say that you don't know the league average for SS for RC/27. I don't know it either, but they are meaningless, since RC/27 only shows what a hitter's value is above replacement value, which is not the same as above league average. And since you are talking about how many runs more than league average that he gives up, you need to use that same measure on offense.
So let's look at league average numbers for SS.
According to this THT article, http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/printarticle/average-is-as-average-does/

the league average numbers for SS for 2007 are .270 .336 .422.

In 660 AB's that translates to 93 runs created.

Let's look at Fontenot's career stats. .290 .369 .457

In 660 AB's that translates to 111 runs created. Or 18 more runs created than a league average SS.

So if your very generous number of 32 runs given up more than a league average SS is true, than Fontenot barely makes up half the extra runs he gives over the extra runs he creates.

kpresidente
11-06-2008, 08:29 AM
OK, lets start all over again...and lets start with the offense since those numbers are less guesswork.

Fontenot vs. RHP
.298|.379|.473 - 6.92 RC/27

Keppinger vs. LHP
.351|.403|.515 - 8.65 RC/27

Platoon (figuring Fontenot gets 2/3 of the ABs) = 183 RC in 660 ABs.

Average SS
.290|.369|.422 - 4.76 RC/27 = 116 RC in 660 ABs

Difference = +67 for the Fontenot/Kepp platoon.

BTW - I used this site http://www.tangotiger.net/markov.html to calculate RC/27 and I used the Bill James method.

So the Fontenot/Keppinger platoon would have to give up 67 more runs in the field than the average SS to break even.


Now for the defense...

The 32 runs/game is not generous. If anything, it's high. Like I said, total chances overstates the run value because it counts assisted plays twice. A groundball to the SS = 1 assist for the SS and 1 PO for the 1B, which = 2 TC and only 1 real out. INOW - suppose there are 7 Ks in a game; that leaves 20 outs in the field. However, that same game might have 30 TCs because 10 of those a assisted plays. So that method is flawed.

What we should do is just use assists alone for a middle-infielder. The reasoning is that a great infielder probably won't make many more POs than an average one. Anybody can tag second base or catch an infield fly. However, he will make a lot more assists. Then subtract errors.

The problem is, again, I don't know the averages for a SS or a 2B. FWIW, Fontenot averages 2.71 assists/27 @ 2B and Keppinger 2.62 assists/27 @ SS. The average assists for a SS and a 2B tend to be about the same league-wide. Assuming that 4th out = 1/2 run (your assumption), the average SS would have to average roughly 3.5 assists/game to make up the difference in runs that Font/Kepp give you at the plate. The league leader in assists (Orlando Cabrera) only averaged 3.05.

So, even using the defensive league leader, the Kepp/Font platoon still comes out on top by 31 runs. Even if you assume Fontenot can't play SS as well as 2B, that's more than made up for by the fact that I'm comparing him against the league leading SS, as opposed to the average.

schmidty622
11-06-2008, 01:25 PM
OK, lets start all over again...and lets start with the offense since those numbers are less guesswork.

Fontenot vs. RHP
.298|.379|.473 - 6.92 RC/27

Keppinger vs. LHP
.351|.403|.515 - 8.65 RC/27

Platoon (figuring Fontenot gets 2/3 of the ABs) = 183 RC in 660 ABs.

Average SS
.290|.369|.422 - 4.76 RC/27 = 116 RC in 660 ABs

Difference = +67 for the Fontenot/Kepp platoon.

BTW - I used this site http://www.tangotiger.net/markov.html to calculate RC/27 and I used the Bill James method.

So the Fontenot/Keppinger platoon would have to give up 67 more runs in the field than the average SS to break even.


Now for the defense...

The 32 runs/game is not generous. If anything, it's high. Like I said, total chances overstates the run value because it counts assisted plays twice. A groundball to the SS = 1 assist for the SS and 1 PO for the 1B, which = 2 TC and only 1 real out. INOW - suppose there are 7 Ks in a game; that leaves 20 outs in the field. However, that same game might have 30 TCs because 10 of those a assisted plays. So that method is flawed.

What we should do is just use assists alone for a middle-infielder. The reasoning is that a great infielder probably won't make many more POs than an average one. Anybody can tag second base or catch an infield fly. However, he will make a lot more assists. Then subtract errors.

The problem is, again, I don't know the averages for a SS or a 2B. FWIW, Fontenot averages 2.71 assists/27 @ 2B and Keppinger 2.62 assists/27 @ SS. The average assists for a SS and a 2B tend to be about the same league-wide. Assuming that 4th out = 1/2 run (your assumption), the average SS would have to average roughly 3.5 assists/game to make up the difference in runs that Font/Kepp give you at the plate. The league leader in assists (Orlando Cabrera) only averaged 3.05.
So, even using the defensive league leader, the Kepp/Font platoon still comes out on top by 31 runs. Even if you assume Fontenot can't play SS as well as 2B, that's more than made up for by the fact that I'm comparing him against the league leading SS, as opposed to the average.

Sooooo lets go out and get the leauge leader, Cabrera! Who also happens to be a better offensive player than Greene.

757690
11-06-2008, 03:40 PM
OK, lets start all over again...and lets start with the offense since those numbers are less guesswork.

Fontenot vs. RHP
.298|.379|.473 - 6.92 RC/27

Keppinger vs. LHP
.351|.403|.515 - 8.65 RC/27

Platoon (figuring Fontenot gets 2/3 of the ABs) = 183 RC in 660 ABs.

Average SS
.290|.369|.422 - 4.76 RC/27 = 116 RC in 660 ABs

Difference = +67 for the Fontenot/Kepp platoon.

BTW - I used this site http://www.tangotiger.net/markov.html to calculate RC/27 and I used the Bill James method.

So the Fontenot/Keppinger platoon would have to give up 67 more runs in the field than the average SS to break even.


Now for the defense...

The 32 runs/game is not generous. If anything, it's high. Like I said, total chances overstates the run value because it counts assisted plays twice. A groundball to the SS = 1 assist for the SS and 1 PO for the 1B, which = 2 TC and only 1 real out. INOW - suppose there are 7 Ks in a game; that leaves 20 outs in the field. However, that same game might have 30 TCs because 10 of those a assisted plays. So that method is flawed.

What we should do is just use assists alone for a middle-infielder. The reasoning is that a great infielder probably won't make many more POs than an average one. Anybody can tag second base or catch an infield fly. However, he will make a lot more assists. Then subtract errors.

The problem is, again, I don't know the averages for a SS or a 2B. FWIW, Fontenot averages 2.71 assists/27 @ 2B and Keppinger 2.62 assists/27 @ SS. The average assists for a SS and a 2B tend to be about the same league-wide. Assuming that 4th out = 1/2 run (your assumption), the average SS would have to average roughly 3.5 assists/game to make up the difference in runs that Font/Kepp give you at the plate. The league leader in assists (Orlando Cabrera) only averaged 3.05.

So, even using the defensive league leader, the Kepp/Font platoon still comes out on top by 31 runs. Even if you assume Fontenot can't play SS as well as 2B, that's more than made up for by the fact that I'm comparing him against the league leading SS, as opposed to the average.

First, I apologize for getting the platoon stats wrong, I just read it wrong.

Second, if you don't understand that the outs and runs that a defensive player is responsible for, is far greater than just his own assists, then you simply do not understand how the game is played. I am not tying to get personal, but there is no other way for me to put it.
Please address the points that I have made twice now (and will make for a third time). If you do not, there is no point in continuing this discussion.


SS is the most important defensive position on the field. It's importance can not be measured by any fielding stat, or any compilation of stats. Having a solid fielding SS results not just in less errors, or more plays made, it leads to less pitches being thrown by the pitchers, having a starter go deeper into games, using the bullpen less, letting pitchers have confidence in allowing the batter to make contact, less AB's for the opposing lineup which means that the best hitters hit less often, less stress on the rest of the defense, and so much more.

If you want a good example of how important a good defensive SS is, just look at the Rays. They gave up 209 less runs this year than they did last year. A lot of that was better relief pitching and the addition of Garza. But it also was because they got Jason Bartlett to replace Brandan Harris at SS. There is no stat that can show the difference he made, but the entire Rays pitching staff said that Bartlett was the teams MVP because he gave them confidence to let the opposing hitters make contact, and made their job much easier.

Another good example is Kepp himself. In limited action, Kepp put up halfway decent numbers defensively in 07, which let many Reds fans believe that he could play SS for a full season. Well in 08, he proved that he could not. His defense was horrible, and anyone who watched Reds games could tell you that. The Reds horrible defense last year, especially Kepp's was one of the biggest reasons why they lost so many games.

Seriously, if you do not think that defense matters at SS matters more than the offense he creates, then you do not understand how baseball is played.

bgwilly31
11-06-2008, 04:26 PM
Lets hear why everybody thinks Kepp at SS is such an Issue. Dont forget guys hes one of the best hitters on the team. Dont get so down on him just because of the rushed back from injury stage this past year.

I dont like the line-up without kepp in it. I think hes a fantastic 7 spot hitter. And a ok 2 hitter.

This team needs bats. If we want to be anything next year. IMO.

757690
11-06-2008, 04:56 PM
Lets hear why everybody thinks Kepp at SS is such an Issue. Dont forget guys hes one of the best hitters on the team. Dont get so down on him just because of the rushed back from injury stage this past year.

I dont like the line-up without kepp in it. I think hes a fantastic 7 spot hitter. And a ok 2 hitter.

This team needs bats. If we want to be anything next year. IMO.

The Reds need a big bat in the middle of the lineup and better defense. Their offense is not that far away, but their defense needs a complete makeover, especially the leftside of the infield.

That is why it makes no sense to bring in a SS who is a worse defender than Kepp to platoon with him.

First of all, no one platoons at 55 because a team needs a steady double play combo. Name one playoff team that platooned at SS in the last 20 years.

To give one an idea about the omportance of infield defense, the Brewers felt it was necessary to move Ryan Braun from third to left, because his defense did not justify his bat.
Ryan Braun, one the leagues top five sluggers, could not produce enough offense to offset the runs he was letting in due to his defense. This is at third base, a much less defensively important position than SS, So Ray Fontenot can justify his bat at SS, when Ryan Braun can't at third?

bgwilly31
11-06-2008, 05:28 PM
The Reds need a big bat in the middle of the lineup and better defense. Their offense is not that far away, but their defense needs a complete makeover, especially the leftside of the infield.

That is why it makes no sense to bring in a SS who is a worse defender than Kepp to platoon with him.

First of all, no one platoons at 55 because a team needs a steady double play combo. Name one playoff team that platooned at SS in the last 20 years.

To give one an idea about the omportance of infield defense, the Brewers felt it was necessary to move Ryan Braun from third to left, because his defense did not justify his bat.
Ryan Braun, one the leagues top five sluggers, could not produce enough offense to offset the runs he was letting in due to his defense. This is at third base, a much less defensively important position than SS, So Ray Fontenot can justify his bat at SS, when Ryan Braun can't at third?

Why a good effort ^ but that point doesnt make sense because they didnt take him out of the lineup they just moved him.

redsfandan
11-06-2008, 05:59 PM
i think the point was that it's not wise to accept bad defenders at positions where you need good defense.

kpresidente
11-06-2008, 06:13 PM
First, I apologize for getting the platoon stats wrong, I just read it wrong.

Second, if you don't understand that the outs and runs that a defensive player is responsible for, is far greater than just his own assists, then you simply do not understand how the game is played. I am not tying to get personal, but there is no other way for me to put it.
Please address the points that I have made twice now (and will make for a third time). If you do not, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Get real man. I played baseball until my freshman year in college and would have continued if not for an injury. I think I understand how the game is played. I played in amateur leagues after that with guys who had made it as high as AA until I was 26. Not only that, but I played catcher, and can rattle off every responsibility for every player in the field in every situation if you want me to. Having seen every pitch of every game I played, not to mention having the best view in the stadium of every defensive play, I'll tell you the most important thing to preventing runs is not throwing gopher balls out over the plate.

The knock on Keppinger, and I presume, Fontenot, is their range. Assists exactly measures how many ground balls they got to in position to make a throw. Sure, there's some other things, like cut-off throws in there, but it's not significant.

Don't feed me garbage like "If you don't think X, you don't know baseball", because I know the game through and through. Tell my why or go bother somebody else.



If you want a good example of how important a good defensive SS is, just look at the Rays. They gave up 209 less runs this year than they did last year. A lot of that was better relief pitching and the addition of Garza. But it also was because they got Jason Bartlett to replace Brandan Harris at SS. There is no stat that can show the difference he made, but the entire Rays pitching staff said that Bartlett was the teams MVP because he gave them confidence to let the opposing hitters make contact, and made their job much easier.
Big deal. That's just talk. A lot of playoff teams had bad shortstops. A lot of great shortstops were sitting at home watching games on TV during the postseason.

If Bartlett was really the answer, then how come the Twins won 10 more games with Harris than they did in '07 with Bartlett? Maybe it's because their OBP was 10 points higher. If they'd have held on to Garza, you'd probably seen them in the WS instead of the Rays. Brendan Harris and all. There's lot's of ways to skin a cat.


Well in 08, he proved that he could not.
No, he proved he could not when coming off an injury. His numbers throughout his whole career, including the minors, says he has decent range.



The Reds horrible defense last year, especially Kepp's was one of the biggest reasons why they lost so many games.
The reason we lost so many games was because our starting pitching was bad and we couldn't get on base. Sure, part of it was the defense, but if that was the major reason, then why did Volquez win 17 games? Didn't he play in front of the same defense? Why did we have a winning record with Hairston in the line-up playing SS?

kpresidente
11-06-2008, 06:47 PM
First of all, no one platoons at 55 because a team needs a steady double play combo. Name one playoff team that platooned at SS in the last 20 years.


Didn't the Reds platoon Bill Doran and Mariano Duncan in 1990?

The reason you don't see middle infield platoons has more to do with the fact that there's not a lot of left-handed middle infielders out there than any double play combo reason.

757690
11-06-2008, 07:38 PM
Get real man. I played baseball until my freshman year in college and would have continued if not for an injury. I think I understand how the game is played. I played in amateur leagues after that with guys who had made it as high as AA until I was 26. Not only that, but I played catcher, and can rattle off every responsibility for every player in the field in every situation if you want me to. Having seen every pitch of every game I played, not to mention having the best view in the stadium of every defensive play, I'll tell you the most important thing to preventing runs is not throwing gopher balls out over the plate.

Don't feed me garbage like "If you don't think X, you don't know baseball", because I know the game through and through. You tell my why or go bother somebody else.


Just because you played the game does not mean you understand it. I played with many players in college and in amateur leagues that did not understand the game. In fact, I remembering trying to explain to our catcher why OBP was a better stat than BA. He never got it.

I think it is a very logical argument to say that if you do not understand the importance of defense, than you do not understand how the game is played. It is like saying that if you don't understand the importance of punctuation than you don't understand how to write. Just as punctuation is a boring but essential part of writing, so to is defense a boring but essential part of baseball. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand how the game is played.
Let me put it another way. Let's say I said that pitching did not matter, that all that mattered was offense. I think it would be logical to say that I did not understand the game based on that statement.



The knock on Keppinger, and I presume, Fontenot, is their range. Assists exactly measures how many ground balls they got to in position to make a throw. Sure, there's some other things, like cut-off throws in there, but it's not significant.

First of all, I find it hard to believe that a catcher would think that not hitting the cut off man is not significant.
Second, you still have not addressed my point of how bad defense leads to so many other bad things that I have listed in every post. Please address this. I will keep asking you until you do.



Big deal. That's just talk. A lot of playoff teams had bad shortstops. A lot of great shortstops were sitting at home watching games on TV during the postseason.

Name me one team that made the Playoffs in the last 5 years that had a bad defensive SS. And it is illogical to assert conclude from the statement, "A good SS is necessary for a team to contend" that the statement "All teams with good SS will contend."


If Bartlett was really the answer, then how come the Twins won 10 more games with Harris than they did in '07 with Bartlett? Maybe it's because their OBP was 10 points higher. If they'd have held on to Garza, you'd probably seen them in the WS instead of the Rays. Brendan Harris and all. There's lot's of ways to skin a cat.

Harris only played 55 games at SS. He played most of his games between 2B and 3B. Nick Punto played more games at SS. Harris and Bartlett were in the Garza deal, so if they would have held on to Garza, it would mean that they would have had Bartlett at SS, so I agree, in that scenario, they would have been better than the Rays.


The reason we lost so many games was because our starting pitching was bad and we couldn't get on base. Sure, part of it was the defense, but if that was the major reason, then why did Volquez win 17 games? Didn't he play in front of the same defense? Why did we have a winning record with Hairston in the line-up playing SS?

Our starting pitching was actually pretty good, but it looked bad because of the horrible defense behind it. This is shown in the difference between their ERA's and xFIP.


Harang -39
Arroyo -43
Volquez +25
Cueto -19
Fogg -198
Belisle -297
Bailey -259

Everyone except Volquez had a much worse xFIP than ERA. That means that the defense let them down. Volquez, being a strike out pitcher, was able to overcome the defense, by not letting them have to field many balls. Arroyo and Harang, who pitch to contact, were hurt the most (outside the three who did not pitch a lot of innings), because they relied on the defense to make most of their outs.

As for Hairston, he only played 34 games as SS, far too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions.

757690
11-06-2008, 07:38 PM
Didn't the Reds platoon Bill Doran and Mariano Duncan in 1990?

The reason you don't see middle infield platoons has more to do with the fact that there's not a lot of left-handed middle infielders out there than any double play combo reason.

Doran was acquired at the trading deadline and only started only 11 games with the Reds. It was not a platoon, Duncan was the started and Doran filled in for him. Doran got on a mini hot streak and started 6 games in row at one point, but it was not a platoon.

757690
11-06-2008, 10:13 PM
Why a good effort ^ but that point doesnt make sense because they didnt take him out of the lineup they just moved him.

But when they moved him, they created a hole at 3rd. That hole was filled by Billy Hall and Russell Branyon. Using RC, they created 88 runs at third. If they would have kept Braun at 3rd, then they would have gone out and gotten a left fielder, which they needed. A league average left fielder creates between 115-120 runs. That means that the Brewers, by moving Braun, lost between 27-32 runs. So basically, they felt that his defense was costing them at least that much. And 3rd base is a less important defensive position than SS.

tommycash
11-06-2008, 10:23 PM
www.cincinnatireds.com

Jocketty says no to Greene.

kpresidente
11-06-2008, 10:41 PM
I think it is a very logical argument to say that if you do not understand the importance of defense, than you do not understand how the game is played.
Good because I'm the one in this conversation who understands the importance of defense. As in, it's the least important of the three of offense, pitching, and defense.


First of all, I find it hard to believe that a catcher would think that not hitting the cut off man is not significant.
What I meant is that you can get an assist on a cut-off throw.


Second, you still have not addressed my point of how bad defense leads to so many other bad things that I have listed in every post. Please address this. I will keep asking you until you do.
It's just a statement. You haven't quantified it so it's mostly meaningless. For instance, I have no doubt that pitchers will feel more comfortable with a slick-fielding SS. That doesn't say anything about how much it actually impacts their performance.



Name me one team that made the Playoffs in the last 5 years that had a bad defensive SS. And it is illogical to assert conclude from the statement, "A good SS is necessary for a team to contend" that the statement "All teams with good SS will contend."

How about 2008?

Boston - Julio Lugo

Just misses...
Mets - Jose Reyes
Yankees - Derek Jeter

So the problem isn't the logic, it's the facts. A good SS is NOT necessary to contend. The fact that most contending teams have a good SS doesn't mean it follows logically that a good SS is necessary, either. Contending teams would be expected to excel in most areas of the game.


Our starting pitching was actually pretty good, but it looked bad because of the horrible defense behind it. This is shown in the difference between their ERA's and xFIP.

Harang -39
Arroyo -43
Volquez +25
Cueto -19
Fogg -198
Belisle -297
Bailey -259

Everyone except Volquez had a much worse xFIP than ERA. That means that the defense let them down. Volquez, being a strike out pitcher, was able to overcome the defense, by not letting them have to field many balls. Arroyo and Harang, who pitch to contact, were hurt the most (outside the three who did not pitch a lot of innings), because they relied on the defense to make most of their outs.

1. xFIP is a dubious stat, in that it significantly undervalues the extremes. In other words, a horrible pitcher will be better represented in his xFIP than he actually pitched. It's good for identifying pitchers who pitched in front of bad defenses (I've never denied that), but shouldn't be used to quantify that effect. Notice how according to xFIP, Belise was significantly better than Cueto, which is ridiculous. Nobody believes that. Our 5th starters were much worse than represented here....

Harang - 4.39
Arroyo - 4.34
Volquez - 4.02
Cueto - 4.62
Fogg - 5.60
Belisle - 4.31
Bailey - 5.34

Once you understand that Fogg, Belise, Bailey and probably Harang pitched significantly worse than their xFIP is showing, you realize that yes, things were quite bad. When the league-average ERA is 4.29 and you have 1 guy out of 5 top that, you can't say we were "pretty good."

Our top 4 starters are showing just below league average, and our 5th starters were horrible. Keep in mind, we were only 8 wins under .500, so our record correlates quite nicely with those figures, without having to bring defense in at all (especially when you note that we were a poor offensive team as well.)

2. All that you've done is shown that we had a bad defense, and that it affected out pitching negatively. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing whether bad defense at one position outweighs adding a nearly .900 OPS to the line-up, and I think I've clearly shown that it does not.

3. Some of the biggest problems with our defense are already solved. Catcher, CF, LF, and RF should all be much better next year. This means we can get away with below average SS and the defense will still be improved.



Lastly, I'm not going to let you push me into a more extreme position than the one I've taken, either. Note this from my initial post about Fontenot...


That platoon might also work at 3B, although Fontenot hasn't seen much time there. Or you could put the pair at 2B and move Phillips. Several options there.

Note that I am aware of the defensive liability I'd be leaving and offered several other options to alleviate it. My idea would be to move Phillips, but I didn't say that because I didn't want to open up a conversation that's been rehashed about a million times. I expected that reasonable readers would run with that suggestion anyway.

My point was to bring his name into the conversation, because he's a perfect platoon partner for Keppinger, and the pair would give a ton of offense that warrants finding a spot in the field. You work out the defense afterward, because the flexibility to make it work is there.

kpresidente
11-06-2008, 10:46 PM
But when they moved him, they created a hole at 3rd. That hole was filled by Billy Hall and Russell Branyon. Using RC, they created 88 runs at third. If they would have kept Braun at 3rd, then they would have gone out and gotten a left fielder, which they needed. A league average left fielder creates between 115-120 runs. That means that the Brewers, by moving Braun, lost between 27-32 runs. So basically, they felt that his defense was costing them at least that much. And 3rd base is a less important defensive position than SS.

It's not nearly that simple. Bill Hall was already on the team and was only making $5 million (forget Branyon for the moment because he came later). There is little chance they could have gotten a 115 RC outfielder for $5 million, plus, they would have had to pay Hall anyway (to sit the bench in your scenario). So it made sense for them financially to go with Hall a 3B and move Braun.

kpresidente
11-06-2008, 10:52 PM
"I told clubs we're looking for protection in the event Alex Gonzalez is not able to play," Jocketty continued. "We're not looking to take on a large salary. It'd be a zero to three [years] guy. Or, we might not do anything. We've got alternatives with Jeff Keppinger, Paul Janish and of course, Gonzalez."

That's pretty much been my position from the get go. The only way I would have taken Greene is if they took Gonzo in return, which would negate the salary effects.

757690
11-06-2008, 11:48 PM
Second, you still have not addressed my point of how bad defense leads to so many other bad things that I have listed in every post. Please address this. I will keep asking you until you do.
It's just a statement. You haven't quantified it so it's mostly meaningless. For instance, I have no doubt that pitchers will feel more comfortable with a slick-fielding SS. That doesn't say anything about how much it actually impacts their performance.

My whole point is that is can not be quantified with stats, because the effects are too complex. But here goes my attempt at it.

"SS is the most important defensive position on the field. It's importance can not be measured by any fielding stat, or any compilation of stats. Having a solid fielding SS results not just in less errors, or more plays made, it leads to less pitches being thrown by the pitchers,"

An error or a missed play means that the pitcher needs to pitch to at least one more batter, usually more. For every missed play or error, I think it is safe to assume that a pitcher will throw at least 10 more pitches. If a fielder gets to one less ball every other game, that means that a starting pitcher will throw an additional 150 pitches in a season, or another start and a half. Or to go another route, the pitcher throws 10 more pitches in that game, which means that he pitches one less inning than he should. This means extra work for the bullpen, plus it means you have your best pitcher out for one less inning. The extra work for your bullpen means that you will have less options throughout the season to use the right matchups, because guys are tired.
Like I said, it is very complex math to figure out exactly how many runs that means over the course of a year, but it clearly is significant.


"letting pitchers have confidence in allowing the batter to make contact"

This is not the same as "pitchers will feel more comfortable with a slick-fielding SS". It is not about their feelings, it is about how they approach hitters.
If they don't have faith in their defense, pitchers will try to strike everyone out. First, that makes them predictable, and thus easier to hit. Second, it adds heavily to their pitch count. This is much more than the 10 pitches because of a bad play. This is for every hitter. I would conservatively say that this approach adds at least 1 pitch per batter or around 20-25 pitches to a pitchers pitch count. So it has the same effect as a bad play, but at least twice as much.


"less AB's for the opposing lineup which means that the best hitters hit less often"

This is an really important one. This is exactly why walks are so important. Giving Albert Pujols one more at bat each game can be deadly. Preventing that can be the difference in games. Again, no way to know the actual #'s of runs this costs over the course of the season, but it is significant.

And here is one more I did not list. Turning a double play.

Think of how important double plays are in games. They are rally killers. The make it extremely difficult for teams to score in that inning. If a team does not get a double play, at best it continues the inning and leaves at least one man on base, at worse, there are no outs made and at least two runners are on base. In addition to all things I said above, this directly gives the other team a good scoring opportunity when there should be none or the end of the inning. Let's just say it happens once a week. That would mean 27 more chances for the other team to have a big inning throughout the year.

Bad defense leads to all these things, plus the direct runs that the player missing the play leads to. I am not going to give a number because there is no way to know what that number would be, but hopefully you can see that it is significant enough to make sure that you have a SS that can make all the plays he should. The one thing I will say is that all these side effects that you think are not significant, probably lead to more runs than the actual direct effect of not making the play.

757690
11-06-2008, 11:59 PM
Name me one team that made the Playoffs in the last 5 years that had a bad defensive SS.

How about 2008?

Boston - Julio Lugo

Just misses...
Mets - Jose Reyes
Yankees - Derek Jeter

Lugo was removed as the starting SS midseason and replaced with Jed Lowrie. He was replaced because Red Sox management concluded that they could not win with Lugo as their starting SS. However, they did win with him in 2007, so I will give you that one. I will also give you Jeter, not so sure about Reyes.

Still, you named teams that have payrolls over $150M, which basically allows them to have weakness in some crucial areas because they can blow away the competition in every other one. And still that only amounts to 5 out of the 40 teams that made the playoffs over the last 5 years. So it can be done, but only with a ton of money, and even then it is unlikely.

ChatterRed
11-07-2008, 03:49 AM
I'm glad Jocketty came out and shot down this rumor. I pretty much never believed it from the start anyway. I thought it was one of the dumbest trades I'd read in a long while.

kpresidente
11-09-2008, 07:33 AM
Lugo was removed as the starting SS midseason and replaced with Jed Lowrie. He was replaced because Red Sox management concluded that they could not win with Lugo as their starting SS. However, they did win with him in 2007, so I will give you that one. I will also give you Jeter, not so sure about Reyes.

Still, you named teams that have payrolls over $150M, which basically allows them to have weakness in some crucial areas because they can blow away the competition in every other one. And still that only amounts to 5 out of the 40 teams that made the playoffs over the last 5 years. So it can be done, but only with a ton of money, and even then it is unlikely.

Lugo is also the worst hitter of the three, and the Sox also had an in-house replacement in Lowrie.

2008 is the only year I looked at so I don't know if there's more than 5.

This comes from Moneyball...

"What-and this is what the question amounted to-was the efficient way to spend money on baseball players? The first, short answer, according to a pamphlet commissioned by Alderson, was to spend it on hitters. The pamphlet was written by a former aerospace engineer turned baseball writer, Eric Walker. Fielding, Walker wrote, was "at most five percent of the game." The rest was pitching and offense"