Geno to short?

[757690]

I don't quite understand this objection. The reason why Suarez is (potentially) more valuable at short is precisely because the offensive gap between Garcia/Gordon and Senzel/Shogo could be larger than the defensive gap between Suarez and Garcia/Gordon.

It's actually a move driven principally by scarcity: namely the scarcity of proven shortstops on the Reds' roster. Otherwise I doubt it would ever be considered.

1. The scarcity is only because of the Reds incompetence. There were plenty of SS for the Reds to get, they just failed to get one. There isn’t a scarcity of SS in MLB that require Suarez to play SS.

2. Regardless, Suarez shouldn’t get extra WAR for playing a different position. What he produces at SS should be worth the same as what he produces at 3B in terms of helping the Reds win games. If he is terrible defensively at SS, he shouldn’t get bonus points for being a good hitter. All that should matter is how many runs he is creating with his offense, and how many runs he is losing with his defense. It shouldn’t matter where he is playing.

Now, maybe your math is correct, (I don’t think it is) but that shouldn’t effect individual player’s WAR’s. If the Reds get more wins by playing Shogo more because Suarez is at SS, then that will be reflected in Shogo’s WAR. Suarez’s WAR shouldn’t get a bump because of it.

[Wonderful Monds]

1. The scarcity is only because of the Reds incompetence. There were plenty of SS for the Reds to get, they just failed to get one. There isn’t a scarcity of SS in MLB that require Suarez to play SS.

2. Regardless, Suarez shouldn’t get extra WAR for playing a different position. What he produces at SS should be worth the same as what he produces at 3B in terms of helping the Reds win games. If he is terrible defensively at SS, he shouldn’t get bonus points for being a good hitter. All that should matter is how many runs he is creating with his offense, and how many runs he is losing with his defense. It shouldn’t matter where he is playing.

Now, maybe your math is correct, (I don’t think it is) but that shouldn’t effect individual player’s WAR’s. If the Reds get more wins by playing Shogo more because Suarez is at SS, then that will be reflected in Shogo’s WAR. Suarez’s WAR shouldn’t get a bump because of it.

I mean those things wouldn’t be happening in a vacuum though. Because the whole calculus would be that it’s Suarez at short, and then some combo of Senzel, Moose, and Shogo in the lineup, instead of Suarez at 3rd, and then Senzel, Moose, and Farmer or Holder or Gordon at short instead. Allowing that upgrade is part of the calculation and why he gets a bump for being able to short.

[757690]

I mean those things wouldn’t be happening in a vacuum though. Because the whole calculus would be that it’s Suarez at short, and then some combo of Senzel, Moose, and Shogo in the lineup, instead of Suarez at 3rd, and then Senzel, Moose, and Farmer or Holder or Gordon at short instead. Allowing that upgrade is part of the calculation and why he gets a bump for being able to short.

Again, that bump would be reflected in each individual player’s WAR who is getting more playing time, and less negative WAR from Farmer et all playing SS. There is no need to reward Suarez with more WAR.

I mean Fangraphs is fully inconsistent with this concept. They don’t reward relievers who pitch in higher leverage situations because they claim that is just a manager’s decision, not reflective of the player’s production. But here they want to reward Suarez because of a manager’s decision. It makes no sense.

[Joey Blotto]

Again, that bump would be reflected in each individual player’s WAR who is getting more playing time, and less negative WAR from Farmer et all playing SS. There is no need to reward Suarez with more WAR.

I mean Fangraphs is fully inconsistent with this concept. They don’t reward relievers who pitch in higher leverage situations because they claim that is just a manager’s decision, not reflective of the player’s production. But here they want to reward Suarez because of a manager’s decision. It makes no sense.

Do you disagree that greater positional flexibility makes a player more valuable?

[757690]

Do you disagree that greater positional flexibility makes a player more valuable?

Just repeating for a third time:

If a player is able to play more than one position, his extra value will be represented in the extra playing time that gives to better players able to play more, in their WAR. He himself should not get rewarded in his WAR for this.

His playing different positions is the result of a manager’s decision. This case is a perfect example. Suarez has no business playing SS. He is not versatile enough to play SS. If he plays SS, he is only playing because of a manager’s decision, not his talent level.

[Joey Blotto]

Just repeating for a third time:

If a player is able to play more than one position, his extra value will be represented in the extra playing time that gives to better players able to play more, in their WAR. He himself should not get rewarded in his WAR for this.

His playing different positions is the result of a manager’s decision. This case is a perfect example. Suarez has no business playing SS. He is not versatile enough to play SS. If he plays SS, he is only playing because of a manager’s decision, not his talent level.

WAR doesn't purport to measure talent level. It attempts to gauge a player's value in terms of adding team wins. And a player's value is highly dependent on how specifically he is used.

FWIW I don't disagree with you on this particular case. I am very skeptical that Suarez could hold down short defensively to the point where this move would constitute a net gain for the club. I'm simply defending the notion that players' values can in fact vary depending on how they are employed defensively.

[757690]

WAR doesn't purport to measure talent level. It attempts to gauge a player's value in terms of adding team wins. And a player's value is highly dependent on how specifically he is used.

FWIW I don't disagree with you on this particular case. I am very skeptical that Suarez could hold down short defensively to the point where this move would constitute a net gain for the club. I'm simply defending the notion that players' values can in fact vary depending on how they are employed defensively.

It’s an interesting debate. Maybe better for a separate thread.

Of course, the devil is in the details. How much extra value is given to a strong offensive player for playing a normally defensive first position? The argument given in this thread is that it might be enough to counter the poor defense that a player like Suarez would provide at SS. If that is the case, I would say it’s too much. I have no idea how much is given, however.

And again, if Fangraphs is doing this, then they should give extra value to relievers who pitch in high leverage situations. It’s the same logic.

[westofyou]

Part of me says just stick him at SS and roll the dice. Gets Shogo in the lineup too, who was coming along nicely at the end of last year.

That IF could be historically bad

In early September 1965 the Reds played an IF of Deron Johnson at 3rd, Helms at SS, Rose at 2nd, Perez at 1b, pretty bad. Helms was the super emergency SS in 1967 when Cardenas and Rose got hurt they ran Tommy out to SS for 45 games and had this as the IF Perez 3b, Helms SS, Ruiz 2b, Pavletich 1b and all sorts of other statues got in the mix, the Reds were in 1st when Cardenas went down, they went 17-27 during that run. Helms never started another game at SS, and Helms was better fielder than Suerez.

Put your players in the best position to excel and help your team, Suarez at 3b is better for the Reds than at SS

[RedsManRick]

To a first approximation, it's basically a question of the gain in production of the extra bat you get to play (usually Senzel/Shogo) vs. the loss of defensive production.

A difference of 20 points of wOBA is worth roughly 10 runs. If we assume most of the lost PA are coming from Senzel/Shogo at a roughly .315 wOBA (ZiPS projections), you can compare that Farmer (.285, -15 runs), Garcia (.250, -33 runs), Holder (.270, -23 runs), Strange-Gordon (.275, -20 runs).

So are those guys that much better defensively than an alignment with Suarez at SS? And that's with a fairly conservative projection of the Senzel/Shogo combo's offensive upside. This team needs some upside, so I certainly hope they give it a chance. Even if Geno is a -20 defender at SS, you're probably breaking even.

[757690]

To a first approximation, it's basically a question of the gain in production of the extra bat you get to play (usually Senzel/Shogo) vs. the loss of defensive production.

A difference of 20 points of wOBA is worth roughly 10 runs. If we assume most of the lost PA are coming from Senzel/Shogo at a roughly .315 wOBA (ZiPS projections), you can compare that Farmer (.285, -15 runs), Garcia (.250, -33 runs), Holder (.270, -23 runs), Strange-Gordon (.275, -20 runs).

So are those guys that much better defensively than an alignment with Suarez at SS? And that's with a fairly conservative projection of the Senzel/Shogo combo's offensive upside. This team needs some upside, so I certainly hope they give it a chance. Even if Geno is a -20 defender at SS, you're probably breaking even.

I’d say Suarez would easily be worse than -20 defender at SS over a full season. I think he would make at least 30 errors which alone would be worth more than -20 runs. His range would be even worse.

Tim Beckham was a -18 and -19 UZR/150 defender at SS the last two years, and he should be a much better option as SS than Suarez.

And Strange-Gordon is a lifetime -21 UZR/150 defender at SS, so he definitely should not be seeing any time at SS.

[Mitri]

To a first approximation, it's basically a question of the gain in production of the extra bat you get to play (usually Senzel/Shogo) vs. the loss of defensive production.

A difference of 20 points of wOBA is worth roughly 10 runs. If we assume most of the lost PA are coming from Senzel/Shogo at a roughly .315 wOBA (ZiPS projections), you can compare that Farmer (.285, -15 runs), Garcia (.250, -33 runs), Holder (.270, -23 runs), Strange-Gordon (.275, -20 runs).

So are those guys that much better defensively than an alignment with Suarez at SS? And that's with a fairly conservative projection of the Senzel/Shogo combo's offensive upside. This team needs some upside, so I certainly hope they give it a chance. Even if Geno is a -20 defender at SS, you're probably breaking even.

This is interesting. And I agree that it's worth considering if the Reds really want to give Garcia proper time in AAA and there is no DH added to the NL.

I think the biggest concern would be jerking Senzel back to the IF. If this is something they've considered doing permanently, why not do it now? In 22 you could move Votto to permanent DH with a Suarez-Garcia-Senzel-Moose configuration.

How bad would a Winker-Shogo-Castellanos outfield be, though? They'd need another true CF option in the mix for sure, not sure Naquin is the answer.

I am truly open to any alternatives to Kyle Freaking Farmer, so sure, why not give it some tries in the spring. I still think they'll give Garcia every chance to be on this team by May.

[757690]

Have we forgotten the damage that Felipe Lopez and Jeff Keppinger did defensively as the Reds starting SS? It was clear their bad defense at SS was killing the team, leading to losses. And they were significantly better as SS than Suarez would be.

[757690]

More numbers:

The last year that Suarez saw significant playing time at SS was in 2015, and he put up a -15.8 UZR/150. That was six years ago, so I would bet heavily that at SS these days he is well worse than -20 UZR/150.

[CaiGuy]

More numbers:

The last year that Suarez saw significant playing time at SS was in 2015, and he put up a -15.8 UZR/150. That was six years ago, so I would bet heavily that at SS these days he is well worse than -20 UZR/150.

Is that bad?

[Bourgeois Zee]

More numbers:

The last year that Suarez saw significant playing time at SS was in 2015, and he put up a -15.8 UZR/150. That was six years ago, so I would bet heavily that at SS these days he is well worse than -20 UZR/150.

No one is denying that Suarez would be a poor SS. The question is whether, all things considered, a lineup with Suarez at SS would be worse than one with other options the Reds have at the position. I suspect, with the Reds' embrace of defensive metrics and Suarez's massive improvements in terms of error rate, Suarez would be Tim Beckham/ Asdrubel Cabrera bad at SS. If that's the case, it makes sense to at least kick the tires on what he looks like rather than a knee-jerk reaction. Especially if he can return to 2019 numbers offensively.

Were the Reds in less dire need of a SS solution, thinking outside the box wouldn't be necessary. However, because Garcia and the rest project so poorly, this is what's left. You don't seem to view Garcia as woefully as all but Marcel does. And that's fine. However, the metrics would seem to confirm it's not outlandish to suggest he'd be a boon to the lineup.

This arrangement would mean Winker's bat would replace that of Garcia, Holder, and/or Farmer. That's a net positive no matter how good those gloves might be, IMO.