Trib says Figgins could come to Chi-town

[fromthestretch]

you're right. i guess mediocre cast offs like podsednik & eckstein weren't a big part of their respective teams success.

 

Well, if the Cubs want to strive for 83 wins next year, they can model their team after the 2006 Cardinals. Frankly, I don't think 83 wins will equal a postseason appearance next year, so I'd prefer to sign and/or trade for guys that are better offensively than Figgins.

 

If he can be acquired for little in return, I have no problem with Figgins in a super-sub role, outside of the fact that he's terrible defensively as an infielder. I'd prefer the Cubs don't deal a lot for him and then count on him to be the starting CF or 2B.

 

If the Cubs are going to make a deal with the Angels for someone with some versatility, deal Izturis for his brother.

 

 

that is a silly corollation imo. the cards only won 83 games because of key injuries to guys like puljos, roland, izzy & edmunds not because they had eckstein at ss.

 

Not once did I say it was solely because of Eckstein. In fact, the words "model their team" kind of implies I was talking about the team as a whole. Even with injuries, Rolen played 142 games and had an .887 OPS which is nearly identical to his career mark. Pujols managed 535 at-bats and put up the second best OPS of his career. Edmonds hasn't exactly been immune to injuries during his career (he averages about 140 games a year), and he's not getting any younger. They knew that going into the season, although, the decline in preduction was probably slightly bigger than expected. Even still, he gave them an .821 OPS as a centerfielder, which isn't bad.

 

Even without those injuries, that team doesn't win 90 games. They had a medicore regular season because they got mediocre production out of RF, LF, SS (yes, Eckstein), and 2B, and terrible production from their catcher. Instead of blaming injuries for limiting them to 83 wins, I'd credit Pujols and Rolen, bench players like Duncan and Spiezio, and bullpen arms such as Wainwright, Looper and Thompson for preventing them from losing even more.

 

But I'm glad you focused on something I didn't even say, rather than how I did point out that someone like Figgins could actually have some value as a super-sub. But there are many better options for CF and 2B than Figgins, especially if you have to give up talent in return.

[Magnetic Curses]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all.

 

using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway.

 

baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job.

 

good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning.

 

i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game.

[mul21]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all.

 

using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway.

 

baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job.

 

good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning.

 

i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game.

 

Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi.

[Magnetic Curses]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all.

 

using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway.

 

baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job.

 

good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning.

 

i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game.

 

Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi.

 

yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them.

[CubColtPacer]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all.

 

using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway.

 

baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job.

 

good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning.

 

i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game.

 

Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi.

 

yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them.

 

Sulley, let me make sure I've got your position right first. Are you saying that a defensive replacement should not be used late because defense in the first is worth the same as defense in the 9th, and that a team shouldn't start their defensive replacment, so why should they put him in late? Or are you saying something else?

[Magnetic Curses]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all.

 

using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway.

 

baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job.

 

good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning.

 

i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game.

 

Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi.

 

yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them.

 

Sulley, let me make sure I've got your position right first. Are you saying that a defensive replacement should not be used late because defense in the first is worth the same as defense in the 9th, and that a team shouldn't start their defensive replacment, so why should they put him in late? Or are you saying something else?

 

have you been follwoing the conversation?

 

i'm saying that players shouldn't be acquired for the sole purpose of using them as late inning replacements, it's worthless.

[fromthestretch]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all.

 

using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway.

 

baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job.

 

good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning.

 

i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game.

 

Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi.

 

yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them.

 

Not only that, but weren't they both the best defensive first basemen on their respective teams as well as being the STARTING first basemen? It's not like they were brought in during the late innings for their defense, nor was there anyone else on those teams that would have replaced them. They were THE first basemen on their teams. Considering that most of this debate has centered around the logic (or lack thereof) behind carrying a defensive specialist on your bench throughout the course of a season, I don't see how Durham or Buckner are relevant to this dicussion.

[CubColtPacer]

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead?

 

The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game.

 

It's a basic principle that applies to many sports.

 

You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all.

 

using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway.

 

baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job.

 

good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning.

 

i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game.

 

Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi.

 

yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them.

 

Sulley, let me make sure I've got your position right first. Are you saying that a defensive replacement should not be used late because defense in the first is worth the same as defense in the 9th, and that a team shouldn't start their defensive replacment, so why should they put him in late? Or are you saying something else?

 

have you been follwoing the conversation?

 

i'm saying that players shouldn't be acquired for the sole purpose of using them as late inning replacements, it's worthless.

 

Yes, I've been following the conversation, including the beginning of the conversation where there was a split over this. At the beginning, people thought that the original poster meant that defensive switches were useless in itself-that's why they defended the defensive switch as they did. The person you quoted was just saying that putting in your best defense at the end of the game when a team is up is logical, not that the team should use that logic to go out and acquire only defense-minded players. I think there is agreement that players should not be acquired for simply the purpose of being a defensive replacement because of his lack of offense. Sorry about the miscommunication.

[fromthestretch]

I'd like to think that most people can agree on the following points:

 

1. If you have a lead going into the ninth, and you happen to have a player on your bench that is better defensively at a position where someone else is currently playing, it's not a bad idea to put in the better defender at that time in an effort to limit your opponent's ability to score.

 

2. Carrying a guy on your bench all season solely for his glovework or for the primary purpose of using him as a late-inning defensive replacement is not the smartest use of a roster spot.

[CubColtPacer]

I'd like to think that most people can agree on the following points:

 

1. If you have a lead going into the ninth, and you happen to have a player on your bench that is better defensively at a position where someone else is currently playing, it's not a bad idea to put in the better defender at that time in an effort to limit your opponent's ability to score.

 

2. Carrying a guy on your bench all season for the primary purpose of using him as a late-inning defensive replacement is not the smartest use of a roster spot.

 

I think that sums it up pretty nicely. Thank you.

[davearm]

have you been follwoing the conversation?

 

i'm saying that players shouldn't be acquired for the sole purpose of using them as late inning replacements, it's worthless.

That's not what's being discussed at all.

 

What the discussion is:

"If you've got a 1 run lead in the 9th and Barry Bonds playing LF, is there any logical reason to remove him and put So Taguchi out there?"

 

What the discussion is NOT:

"Is there any logical reason to have So Taguchi on your roster?"

 

Two completely independent questions altogether.

[davearm]

I'd like to think that most people can agree on the following points:

 

1. If you have a lead going into the ninth, and you happen to have a player on your bench that is better defensively at a position where someone else is currently playing, it's not a bad idea to put in the better defender at that time in an effort to limit your opponent's ability to score.

 

2. Carrying a guy on your bench all season solely for his glovework or for the primary purpose of using him as a late-inning defensive replacement is not the smartest use of a roster spot.

With respect to #1, I would go so far as to point out that one poster earlier indicated that there would be *no* logical reason to do this.

 

You can argue one way or the other about whether it's a good idea, but you cannot (IMO) argue that there's no logical basis for considering such a move.

[goonys evil twin]

have you been follwoing the conversation?

 

i'm saying that players shouldn't be acquired for the sole purpose of using them as late inning replacements, it's worthless.

That's not what's being discussed at all.

 

What the discussion is:

"If you've got a 1 run lead in the 9th and Barry Bonds playing LF, is there any logical reason to remove him and put So Taguchi out there?"

 

What the discussion is NOT:

"Is there any logical reason to have So Taguchi on your roster?"

 

Two completely independent questions altogether.

 

When the discussion started, it was much more about the latter.

[davearm]

When the discussion started, it was much more about the latter.

 

The bolded portions below are what I've been responding to.

 

Let alone three or four of them. The idea of a late inning defensive sub is stupid too. Why are the late innings more important that the early innings?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious.

 

In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring.

 

In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense.

 

Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning?

[CubinNY]

have you been follwoing the conversation?

 

i'm saying that players shouldn't be acquired for the sole purpose of using them as late inning replacements, it's worthless.

That's not what's being discussed at all.

 

What the discussion is:

"If you've got a 1 run lead in the 9th and Barry Bonds playing LF, is there any logical reason to remove him and put So Taguchi out there?"

 

What the discussion is NOT:

"Is there any logical reason to have So Taguchi on your roster?"

 

Two completely independent questions altogether.

 

When the discussion started, it was much more about the latter.

 

Yes. Sorry for derailing the merits of obtaining the flashy Chone Figgons discussion.

 

I think you nailed it on page whatever.

 

The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

 

That's ridiculous.

[RichHillIsABeast]

The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

If you are up by 2+ runs late in the game and Ortiz (or whoever is being subbed for) just batted in the last 1/2 inning, putting a plus defender out there is the smart move.

[CubinNY]

The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter?

 

Maybe it will happen once a year?

 

Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter?

 

Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good.

 

Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea.

Edited November 3, 2006 by CubinNY

[treebird]

The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

i'd have to agree. if you can get a significantly better defensive player into the game and, in all likelihood, avoid sending him up to bat, you should do it.

 

the not sending him up to bat aspect is the key.

[davearm]

The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

 

That's ridiculous.

Right. Optimal strategy evolves along with the game itself.

 

Sometimes it's best to play the infield in, and sometimes it's best to play back for a DP.

 

Sometimes it's best to guard the lines, or play "no doubles" in the OF, or put on a shift, and sometimes it's not.

 

Sometimes it's best to pitch to a hitter, other times it's best to issue an intentional walk.

 

By very similar logic, sometimes it's best to have So Taguchi playing LF instead of Barry Bonds, despite his noodle bat.

[fromthestretch]

The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter?

 

Maybe it will happen once a year?

 

Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter?

 

Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good.

 

Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea.

 

The odds? Depends on who's coming up that inning. If you have a left-handed hitter that likes to pull the ball, I'd say the odds are decent that a ball could get hit to first.

 

Chances are Doug Mietkiewicz shouldn't be on the team in the first place, which somewhat makes all of this moot. But if he is there, it certainly makes sense to use him in that situation.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter?

 

Maybe it will happen once a year?

 

Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter?

 

Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good.

 

Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea.

 

You're looking at it wrong. Who's the better defensive player? Doug M by a wide margin. Who's the better offensive player? Ortiz by a wide margin. You know you have to play defense again to win the game, you may not have to play offense again. If you do, what are the odds Ortiz hits again? Unless he's due up next inning it's better to play Doug M, and even if he is it's a bit of a tossup.

[CubinNY]

The best tactic is to have your best players play, even in the late innings. Replacing David Ortiz for Doug M. in the 9th inning is a poor decison no matter what the score of the game is at the time.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter?

 

Maybe it will happen once a year?

 

Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter?

 

Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good.

 

Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea.

 

The odds? Depends on who's coming up that inning. If you have a left-handed hitter that likes to pull the ball, I'd say the odds are decent that a ball could get hit to first.

 

Chances are Doug Mietkiewicz shouldn't be on the team in the first place, which somewhat makes all of this moot. But if he is there, it certainly makes sense to use him in that situation.

 

Yes but what are the odds that someone like Neifi Perez or Doug M. makes a play that Todd Walker or Ortiz wouldn't?

 

The second scenirao I put up there is much more likely to occur than the first.

[fromthestretch]

Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea.

 

A manager's job is to put the players on his roster in the best position to win. This means two things:

 

1. Scoring as many runs as possible.

2. Limiting the number of runs the opponent scores.

 

If you have a lead going into the ninth, you have to trust in your team's ability to hold that lead. Keeping Ortiz (or ) in the game when you have someone available who is better defensively at that same position is not "playing for the win" so to speak. Keeping him in means you are essentially betting against your team holding the lead.

[goonys evil twin]

The odds? Depends on who's coming up that inning. If you have a left-handed hitter that likes to pull the ball, I'd say the odds are decent that a ball could get hit to first.

 

But that's not the question. The question is if a ball is hit there that Ortiz does not make a play on that Doug would make a play on. They aren't nearly as high as simply having a guy hit it toward first.

 

 

I don't know this for fact, but I'd bet the odds of losing the lead on a play that has nothing to do with the defensive replacement/non replacement, are far greater than the odds of keeping the lead because of the replacement. Once you lose the lead, the defensive replacement is now a problem for your team.

 

But you also have to take into account that many defensive replacements aren't nearly as extreme in their difference as Doug and David. Baker would put in defensive replacements all over the place. He'd replace Murton with Pagan, when there's no clear evidence that Pagan was better. He'd move guys from short to 2nd then bring in a new SS. And who is to say that defensive value goes down a little when you have sat all game, or moved from one position to another.

 

By and large, defensive replacements are just a way for managers to prove they are thinking. It's the safe move, like sac bunting, it seems like the right thing to do. I'm not so sure it is. If you're up by 5, and the goal is to prevent the big inning, maybe it makes sense. But if you are up by 1, you are probably more likely to lose the lead by HR or a walk and XBH than you are by a misplay from a starter.