RMR will hate me for this, but I believe sometimes it's more than just math. I think that any team that has a SS that is 50 runs below average defensively will lose more games than it wins, no matter what the rest of the team looks like. Having a SS that can play a competent defense is a necessity for a competitive team, imo.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
DocRed (02-26-2021),mth123 (02-25-2021),Revering4Blue (02-25-2021)
Sure. That’s the current plan. But in this hypothetical situation we are now worried about the backup defense in LF being worse as a downside? Why would we prefer an option where our best bats are rotating and on the bench over an option that maximizes our lineup and gives our best chance to win? If the math shows a net gain in WAR you make the move backup LF be damned.
___________________
Strikeouts are boring - besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls. More democratic. ~Bull Durham
Here’s another way to look at the Reds’ shortstop issue.
Last year, 2020, according to Fangraphs, in a 60 game season, there were 39 players in MLB with 100 or more PAs at shortstop. There were 31 players in MLB with 200 or more innings defensively at shortstop.
None of them, using either measure, is currently a member of the Cincinnati Reds.
The Reds should be able to figure this out.
Last edited by Kc61; 02-26-2021 at 09:39 AM.
Bob Sheed (02-26-2021)
I don't hate you for it. I just think you lack imagination, save for your ability to conjure up a SS that is some how 25-30 runs worse than the worst everyday SS we've ever seen. Based on our understanding of how much worse players are when they shift positions, that's something on the order of an Adam Dunn level defender playing SS. There's certainly no reason to think Geno would be that.
That's not to say it actually all is "just math". But the math helps us understand the basic dynamics at play. For example, what we have observed throughout MLB history is that at the end of the day, once you've produced and prevented your runs, you win and lose games accordingly -- within a known range of variance. Further, that variance doesn't tend to follow any known pattern. That is, there aren't "flavors" of the same run differential that reliably produce more or fewer wins than other "flavors" of the same differential.
Similarly, while we know players are complex people, not computer code, there are fairly reliably dynamics at play in regards to things like the impact of position changes and the impact of players on each other. Sure, it's possible that having a SS that bad could lead to clubhouse issues which cause poor performance from other players. I imagine a lot pitchers would not be very happy about it certainly. It could change the way pitchers pitch leading to worse results across the board. While there certainly are complex dynamics like that (see defensive shifts leading to more walks), we certainly have not quantified any such "cancer" like dynamics and definitely not on the order you're implying.
So, if you take an otherwise excellent team (say, +200 run differential) and you put a -50 defender at SS, your argument only holds up if one of two things is true:
1) Having a SS that bad somehow leads a team that still substantially outscores opponents in total to lose a lot more games than we'd expect. That is, the team would win lots of blowouts, lose very few blowouts and lose nearly all of its close games. I don't see any way to link extremely poor SS play to this result.
2) That -50 defense from SS is contagious, causing significant poor performance elsewhere through the roster -- to the tune of multiple all-stars worth of lost production. I think you'd need to rely on a "cancer" like explanation as above -- something outside the normal bounds of the interactions of players doing their best to win.
Ultimately, I think your supposition suffers from an excess of imagination. I say if you put a team of 8 All-Stars around a -50 defensive SS, they'd still be an amazing team. Again, I wouldn't argue that some "cancer" like dynamic could exist wherein the presence of that player would make his teammates worse. However, to positively assert that such a dynamic definite does exist, that you know of one in particular, and that it is strong enough to sink an otherwise excellent team is so far out of the bound of what we do know that it only makes sense as an article of faith.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
*BaseClogger* (02-28-2021),Edd Roush (02-26-2021),Joey Blotto (02-26-2021)
Basically, your long well written (though unimaginative post) is just a lot of words that say "it's just math."
I will side step the entire Suarez at SS argument for this, because I was making a bigger point. There is a point where a team gets, where having a player so bad at defense at SS goes beyond just the UZR numbers. So it kinda is option #2, but a little different.
Basically, there is a point where having a SS that bad defensively hurts the team in ways that UZR doesn't measure. UZR as you know, uses the basic notion that a missed play costs around 0.8 runs for the team, so each missed play is worth around 0.8 runs. It is more complicated than that, but at its core, that is the math.
That is based on historical numbers, and is well founded. But those historical numbers are based on teams always having a SS of a certain quality. Let's look at that history. Here is the worst team UZR at SS in MLB each year for the past 10 full seasons:
2019: -11.3
2018: -13.1
2017: -14.1
2016: -17.6
2015: -11.6
2014: -10.3
2013: -17.2
2012: -14.3
2011: -16.8
2010: -17.1
What this reveals is that teams believe there is a breaking point where they need the SS defensive to be in order to field a team. Cleary there are teams every season who could move a 3B, SS, or maybe a CF to SS, that would be worse than the -15-20 UZR that is that breaking point, and choose not to. Even if that player provides enough offensive production to have the math justify their poor defense. We don't need much imagination to find some examples. Why aren't teams moving their power hitting 3B or 2B to SS and just getting another power hitting 2B or 3B? If it was just about math, that would be the smartest move for nearly every team.
But teams aren't doing that. They have power hitting 3B and 2B, and are going out to find defense minded SS with far weaker bats, because there understand that there is level of defense that is needed for a team to have in order to compete.
Getting back go Suarez, if it is just about math, why didn't the Reds keep Suarez at SS and just find a good 3B, which is much easier to find than a good SS? If what you argue is true, then they should have done that at least the last 2 seasons.
Edit: The Reds didn’t even have to find a good 3B. They had Senzel, and were forced to move him to CF. If they felt the math was right, they would have moved Suarez to SS and kept Senzel at 3B. The fact that they didn’t reveals so much.
Last edited by 757690; 02-26-2021 at 03:23 PM.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
No my point is that if you want to argue against the math in a way that is the least bit convincing to anybody, it helps to have some sort of theory about where the math gets in wrong or falls short.
I would posit that the reason you don't see any SS's that are worse than -20 is not because doing so would automatically make your team suck. It's not that teams can't handle it or that a player couldn't still be a net positive contributor. Rather, a few basic reasons:
1) Very few hitters are actually good enough offensively to carry defensive performance that poor, even as a SS. To wit, in 2019, there were a grand total of 4 players in MLB who were +50 on offense and only 22 who were +30. So when you get to that level, you're giving back a lot of your offensive value and you just aren't worth playing any more.
2) Given that there aren't THAT many great hitters and there are a lot of MLB caliber defenders (including in the minors), there are always opportunities to slide good hitters who play poor defense at a premium down the defensive spectrum -- and never is that more true than if you're playing SS and nearly every position is easier.
3) Position changes carry some risk & don't necessarily fix anything. At minimum, there's probably going to be a lag where the player has to learn the nuances to get back up to their ability level. And it's possible the player really struggles to pick those up and never gets back up to the expected level. And bottom line, even if they make the shift successfully and their production translates as you'd expect, you're just creating a different hole to fill. You aren't gaining production per se'. So it only really makes sense in the circumstance where you have a particular solution that fits better in that alignment.
Why didn't they move Geno earlier? Well, for the reasons above I imagine. Given their resources, they felt it easier to acquire a competent SS than to acquire a 3B while also taking the risk of a position shift. Did they lack creativity? Quite possibly? I'm not sure what better options were available along those lines.
So while you think I'm overly concerned about the math, I'd argue you're making up an explanation for SS defense being extraordinarily important in a way that simply isn't necessary. The math, combined with a basic appreciate for players being human and organizations being somewhat risk averse, basically gets you there.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 02-26-2021 at 03:50 PM.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
I showed you precisouly where the math falls short. It never has had to consider a defensive SS that bad. It is based on a history of teams always playing a decent enough defensive SS.
There are examples every year of teams that could move a player to SS that would be terrible defensively, open up a spot for a strong offensive player, but they always choose to have a decent defensive SS, even if that means that they are getting terrible offensive production at SS. Obviously most teams don’t have to make this decision, but it seems there always are a few every season, and they always choose to have a decent defensive SS. This isn’t theory. This is looking at history and drawing conclusions.
Concerning the Reds and Suarez. Last year, they had the option of moving him to SS, putting Senzel back at 3B and Shogo in CF. They chose to pick up Galvis’ option instead, which resulted in a glut of OF and not enough playing time for them all. That first option is easily the best, if Suarez could handle SS. Clearly the Reds concluded that he couldn’t.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
I question if there will even be a “starting shortstop”. I’m guessing that Bell’s favorite game growing up was musical chairs. There’s not one position on the field that a player is penciled in for starting more than 75% of the games. I know that it’s a different era with the computer managing a bigger part of the game but I think it makes it harder to get in a hitting rhythm during the season when you start 2 or 3 games and then sit. Did that play a part in the teams crappy average last year?
I do kinda agree with the notion that WAR undersells the impact a historically bad defender at shortstop would have on a team, at least on its pitchers. Just pitching more often with runners and in high pressure situations more frequently, having to throw more pitches because the inning continues after a ball gets through a more capable shortstop could handle. That kinda stuff. I don’t know if WAR fully captures that kinda thing.
I like WAR as a ballpark measurement, something that points you in the right direction. But there’s a lot I don’t think it can fully quantify either.
757690 (02-26-2021)
It’s likely to be Holder against RHP, Farmer against LHP, and Garcia in the minor leagues.
Unless somebody better falls into the team’s lap off the waiver wire or in trade talks.
I believe Reds already know this, although they are still shopping around. Could change during the season.
Last edited by Kc61; 02-26-2021 at 04:51 PM.
I find it odd that you all assume Suarez to be historically awful at SS defense when he's actually showed you what he can do as a SS defensively.
He's bad, absolutely. And he's likely to have lost a step. (Maybe.)
Historically awful?
Ummm... Unlikely in the extreme.
*BaseClogger* (02-28-2021),Edd Roush (02-26-2021)
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |