Geno to short?

[757690]

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.

He was -18 UZR/150 6 years ago. I just showed that that itself is historically bad. He will likely be worse. It’s unlikely he will be better.

[Bourgeois Zee]

He was -18 UZR/150 6 years ago. I just showed that that itself is historically bad. He will likely be worse. It’s unlikely he will be better.

And, again, he'd have to be a couple magnitudes worse than that to not be better than what is projected by ZiPS for other Red SS options.

[757690]

And, again, he'd have to be a couple magnitudes worse than that to not be better than what is projected by ZiPS for other Red SS options.

At his best, Suarez is a +20 offensive player. If he is -20 on defense, he’s a replacement level player at SS. It’s likely he is worse.

[Wonderful Monds]

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.

He’s already lost a step at 3B. I think he’ll still be okay at third, but I think he’s probably closer to being a first baseman than a shortstop at this point.

I think he probably would be historically bad at SS, just because guys like Suarez at this point in their careers don’t get many chances to play that spot.

[bm1475]

The best the Reds could hope for is like when they had Rich Aurilia at second: hands were okay, but range like a statue.

[Reds Loyalist]

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.

You’re probably right and that is very underwhelming. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a sprinkle of Senzel and Suarez there too, Bell loves to shuffle.

[757690]

And, again, he'd have to be a couple magnitudes worse than that to not be better than what is projected by ZiPS for other Red SS options.

Concerning what to expect from the SS position this year. It should be at the worst, replacement level. That is the very definition of replacement level, a player you can get for free when you have no other options.

If the Reds are going to start a player who is below replacement level, that’s a bigger failure than not signing someone this offseason. Every team should be able to find a replacement level player to fill every roster spot. If the Reds don’t have a player on the roster who can provide replacement level production, they can easily find someone who will.

[dfs]

Concerning what to expect from the SS position this year. It should be at the worst, replacement level. That is the very definition of replacement level, a player you can get for free when you have no other options.

If the Reds are going to start a player who is below replacement level, that’s a bigger failure than not signing someone this offseason. Every team should be able to find a replacement level player to fill every roster spot. If the Reds don’t have a player on the roster who can provide replacement level production, they can easily find someone who will.

The platoon of Farmer/Holder is gonna be at least replacement value. The question is if the pair of them can hold up for the whole season.

[mth123]

Concerning what to expect from the SS position this year. It should be at the worst, replacement level. That is the very definition of replacement level, a player you can get for free when you have no other options. I'm not convinced we

If the Reds are going to start a player who is below replacement level, that’s a bigger failure than not signing someone this offseason. Every team should be able to find a replacement level player to fill every roster spot. If the Reds don’t have a player on the roster who can provide replacement level production, they can easily find someone who will.

I think expecting replacement level play from SS on this team is a generous assumption. There are sub-replacement players every year. Replacement level isn't a given.

[Mitri]

The platoon of Farmer/Holder is gonna be at least replacement value. The question is if the pair of them can hold up for the whole season.

That is a huge assumption. They are easily two of the worst hitters slated for playing time in all MLB 21, and one is barely a SS.

[757690]

I think expecting replacement level play from SS on this team is a generous assumption. There are sub-replacement players every year. Replacement level isn't a given.

In 2019, there were only 6 position players who qualified for the batting title who had negative WAR. 3 were Pujols, Miggy and Hosmer, who were only playing because of their contracts.

There are guys who put up negative WAR, but they almost never are starters.

[Bourgeois Zee]

In 2019, there were only 6 position players who qualified for the batting title who had negative WAR. 3 were Pujols, Miggy and Hosmer, who were only playing because of their contracts.

There are guys who put up negative WAR, but they almost never are starters.

And again (fourth time now), you are underestimating the hole projections have pegged for the Reds at SS.

I'd venture to guess it's the biggest hole in baseball, bar none.

The BEST the Reds have projected, according to ZiPS, is -0.7. The replacements, if given enough ABs to qualify, end up at -0.7 too.

And your numbers are misleading too. There are only six who qualified for the batting title who garnered negative value. There are a hundred guys who earn negative value who have more than 100 ABs. Most of those guys with putrid numbers get replaced. Unfortunately, the Reds' replacements project to be just as bad as those who they might replace. (Again, that hole is massive.)

That's why we're having this circular conversation.

[757690]

And again (fourth time now), you are underestimating the hole projections have pegged for the Reds at SS.

I'd venture to guess it's the biggest hole in baseball, bar none.

The BEST the Reds have projected, according to ZiPS, is -0.7. The replacements, if given enough ABs to qualify, end up at -0.7 too.

And your numbers are misleading too. There are only six who qualified for the batting title who garnered negative value. There are a hundred guys who earn negative value who have more than 100 ABs. Most of those guys with putrid numbers get replaced. Unfortunately, the Reds' replacements project to be just as bad as those who they might replace. (Again, that hole is massive.)

That's why we're having this circular conversation.

First, you keep using ZIPS. Steamer, for instance, has Garcia as exactly a replacement level player, zero WAR. You realize these projections have gigantic error bars, so when discussing them at this level of detail, it’s rather meaningless.

Second, you made my point with your point about guys who get replaced if they produce negative WAR. That will happen with the Reds too, if that occurs. Teams pretty much always find a way to get a player who is at least replacement level to start at every position, even if it takes a mistake or two. I am confident that will happen with the Reds too.

If it doesn’t and the Reds go an entire season with below replacement level production at SS, then we have much bigger worries as fans, because that means the organization is incompetent.

[RedsManRick]

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.

1) None of that changes what the math would be. The next 30 runs aren't suddenly magic when it comes to wins and losses. That is, unless you just keep asserting they are I guess? That teams haven't played guys that poor isn't a sign that it would completely crater your team. It would just be dumb in light of #2.

2) I explained in detail why it is that teams don't play guys who are that bad defensive at SS: There's no reason to. It doesn't give them any advantage because it craters the player's total production relative to freely available alternatives and there are invariably spots open lower on the defense spectrum.

3) Why are you focused on this hypothetical of a -50 SS when Geno would be nothing close to that?

As for what the Reds did or didn't do, I'm not arguing about their decision making. Besides, it's not about some binary "can he handle it or it not". It's about costs, tradeoffs, uncertainty, etc. -- across multiple positions impacting the whole roster. For example, Nick Senzel finished 2019 with labrum surgery -- I suspect that had something to do with not considering him at 3B.

[757690]

1) None of that changes what the math would be. The next 30 runs aren't suddenly magic when it comes to wins and losses. That is, unless you just keep asserting they are I guess? That teams haven't played guys that poor isn't a sign that it would completely crater your team. It would just be dumb in light of #2.

2) I explained in detail why it is that teams don't play guys who are that bad defensive at SS: There's no reason to. It doesn't give them any advantage because it craters the player's total production relative to freely available alternatives and there are invariably spots open lower on the defense spectrum.

3) Why are you focused on this hypothetical of a -50 SS when Geno would be nothing close to that?

As for what the Reds did or didn't do, I'm not arguing about their decision making. Besides, it's not about some binary "can he handle it or it not". It's about costs, tradeoffs, uncertainty, etc. -- across multiple positions impacting the whole roster. For example, Nick Senzel finished 2019 with labrum surgery -- I suspect that had something to do with not considering him at 3B.

First, concerning Senzel, I talked laid it out not as a binary choice, but included all the variables. Take a look again. Why would a labrum surgery effect him 3B but not CF? Zero logic there.

Second, you’re trying to have it both ways. At first you’re saying the math works for Suarez to move to SS. Now you are saying teams don’t do it because the math doesn’t work. Which is it? Clearly teams have had similar situations to the one the Reds are in now before. And they never have moved the 3B to SS.

If you want to argue that the math doesn’t work, fine. Then the math doesn’t work and the Reds shouldn’t try Suarez at SS. But if it does, then why haven’t other teams tried it before?