Originally Posted by
RedsManRick
I would posit that the demands on one's throwing arm are less in CF than at 3B and that one can provide more defensive value with a weak arm in CF than at 3B. Juan Pierre and Johnny Damon were never gonna play 3B... I'd be happy to have somebody with more first hand coaching/playing experience contradict me, but that's my understanding.
I am not having it both ways. I'm saying the following:
1) Geno is not a -50 SS -- not remotely close. So I don't know what that was part of the conversation at all.
2) The reason you don't generally see teams move 3B back to SS is because it's usually just a game of whack a mole with relatively little upside, a neutral shifting of production that doesn't accomplish much while possibly lower that players total value in the short-term.
3) The Reds are in an unusually position where their math is different. They have nothing resembling an even decent non-Geno option at SS. Their current set of options basically have replacement level upside. Meanwhile, they have an average defensive 3B with SS experience and a bat that can carry a ding to his defensive value, a 2B with extensive 3B experience, an athletic OF with 2B/3B experience and a bat with upside who is otherwise going to be stuck in a platoon. It's a pretty strange confluence of circumstances.
It's still entirely reasonable to conclude that all the positional shifting and clubhouse uncertainty that creates isn't worth the extra win or two the math says you likely get from it. That's an entirely defensible position. But claiming that Geno would be a historically poor defensive SS is not. Nor is claiming having a historically poor defensive SS necessarily spells doom for a team.