Trib says Figgins could come to Chi-town

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

And you may lose the lead without the 1st baseman's defense being involved.

 

I think you're looking at it wrong. You are assuming the defensive difference will make a difference. I'd bet it very rarely does.

[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.

 

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.

 

I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon.

[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.

 

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.

 

Depends on who's on the mound and who's coming up. The bottom line is that your team is not guaranteed to bat again because you already have the lead. Now if your bullpen has a season ERA of 5.50, then maybe you should consider leaving Ortiz in since there's a decent chance you'll bat again. But if you have a halfway competent reliever in, then your best bet is putting in your best defense. And if your bullpen does have a 5.50 season ERA, then you have bigger problems to worry about.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I want a bench with guys who can hit, and the only late inning defensive replacements I like is when one of those guys is starting for a game and gets sent back to the bench so the regular starter can finish the game. Defensive shortcomings are more often than not extremely exaggerated.

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

 

That's just wrong. If you are trusting in your team's ability to keep a lead, why do you feel the need to change the players? Trusting them to do it right is foolish. Baseball is a game of percentages, and the percentages say you won't always keep that lead, and it probably won't have anything to do with the defense at first base when you do lose the lead.

 

That's like saying you have to sacrifice a guy over to 3rd because you have to assume your team will capitalize and score that run. Well the fact is you don't always score that run. You have to take into account that execution is not perfect.

 

A defensive replacement might increase your chances of holding the lead, but it's probably a miniscule amount. It will probably decrease your chances of retaking any surrendered lead as well. It's a matter of balancing those two out.

[fromthestretch]

Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon.

 

No one is arguing that, which makes a lot of this discussion moot.

 

I'm saying that if the guy is on the roster, it makes sense to use him in those situations. I completely agree that the guy shouldn't even be on the roster in the first place.

[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.

 

I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon.

 

Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used.

[goonys evil twin]

Depends on who's on the mound and who's coming up. The bottom line is that your team is not guaranteed to bat again because you already have the lead. Now if your bullpen has a season ERA of 5.50, then maybe you should consider leaving Ortiz in since there's a decent chance you'll bat again. But if you have a halfway competent reliever in, then your best bet is putting in your best defense. And if your bullpen does have a 5.50 season ERA, then you have bigger problems to worry about.

 

No, it's not necessarily the best bet. Even a halfway competent reliever is prone to lose a lead on walks and HRs, things that have nothing to do with 1b defense.

 

 

 

It's a far cry from the "obvious" move many would like to paint it as.

[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.

 

 

That's just wrong. If you are trusting in your team's ability to keep a lead, why do you feel the need to change the players? Trusting them to do it right is foolish. Baseball is a game of percentages, and the percentages say you won't always keep that lead, and it probably won't have anything to do with the defense at first base when you do lose the lead.

 

That's like saying you have to sacrifice a guy over to 3rd because you have to assume your team will capitalize and score that run. Well the fact is you don't always score that run. You have to take into account that execution is not perfect.

 

A defensive replacement might increase your chances of holding the lead, but it's probably a miniscule amount. It will probably decrease your chances of retaking any surrendered lead as well. It's a matter of balancing those two out.

 

That's not even close to being the same thing. In fact, it's like arguing the opposite. By sacrificing a guy from second to third, I'm showing a lack of faith in my team's ability to score that guy from second.

[goonys evil twin]

Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used.

 

Based on conventional wisdom sure. But it's not as clear cut as some would like to believe.

[fromthestretch]

Depends on who's on the mound and who's coming up. The bottom line is that your team is not guaranteed to bat again because you already have the lead. Now if your bullpen has a season ERA of 5.50, then maybe you should consider leaving Ortiz in since there's a decent chance you'll bat again. But if you have a halfway competent reliever in, then your best bet is putting in your best defense. And if your bullpen does have a 5.50 season ERA, then you have bigger problems to worry about.

 

No, it's not necessarily the best bet. Even a halfway competent reliever is prone to lose a lead on walks and HRs, things that have nothing to do with 1b defense.

 

It's a far cry from the "obvious" move many would like to paint it as.

 

Why have you made this out to be just about first base defense anyway? I think it applies to any position.

 

I agree with what you said earlier about Baker. I think he took this to an extreme, substituting guys in the sixth inning, which inevitably leads to Neifi getting an at-bat...which no one wants to see.

 

I'm all about maximizing the chances to win, and with a lead in the ninth, I'm of the opinion that putting your best defense out there helps you win.

[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.

 

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.

 

I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon.

 

Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used.

 

But let's take this to its logical conclusion.

 

If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy.

 

Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea.

 

So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used.

 

But let's take this to its logical conclusion.

 

If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy.

 

Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea.

 

So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit.

 

Exactly, hence my inclusion of the bolded.

[fromthestretch]

But let's take this to its logical conclusion.

 

If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy.

 

Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea.

 

So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit.

 

Having the guy on the roster in the first place is an issue with the GM.

 

How to use him if he is there is an issue with the manager.

 

Chances are if you have a guy that is good with the glove and can also hit, he probably should be starting.

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon.

 

Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used.

 

But let's take this to its logical conclusion.

 

If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy.

 

Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea.

 

So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit.

 

Sort of, but you're talking about the GM's responsibility. If the GM doesn't do it right, then it's sunk cost already, and the manager shouldn't make it worse by refusing to play the player in the areas where he could make a positive benefit, however small it is, for the team.

[goonys evil twin]

That's not even close to being the same thing. In fact, it's like arguing the opposite. By sacrificing a guy from second to third, I'm showing a lack of faith in my team's ability to score that guy from second.

 

Defending the defensive replacement by saying you have to assume your team will get the job done is foolish. When your team loses, and the defense had nothing to do with it, you can't just say, well, I put the right guys in, they just didn't do the job. Similarly, when you sac bunt, but don't end up scoring, you can't just say, well, I did the right moves, they just didn't execute.

 

A defensive replacement is most likely not going to make any difference defensively in the 9th inning. The odds of him making any difference may or may not be any higher than the odds of him making a similarly negative impact at the plate after the team loses the lead.

 

The problem is people are assuming the starter will be a liablity on defense while the replacement will prevent a run. And at the same time, they are ignoring the offensive difference. You can't do that. This is the same type of conventional thinking that permeates throughtout the game. It sounds like it makes sense, but it might not actually improve your teams chances at all.

 

Sure, there are games when the starter will let you down and a run will score. But there are also games when the lead will be lost despite making the defensive change. And you will fail to regain the lead thanks to a weakened lineup. You have to take it all into account, not just the simple notion that Player A is a better defender than Player B, therefore, I'm making the change.

 

This doesn't even take into account the rather dubious way many people judge defensive quality, nor the possibility that enterting a game cold may negate some of a defenders advantage over the regular.

Edited November 3, 2006 by goony's evil twin

[goonys evil twin]

Depends on who's on the mound and who's coming up. The bottom line is that your team is not guaranteed to bat again because you already have the lead. Now if your bullpen has a season ERA of 5.50, then maybe you should consider leaving Ortiz in since there's a decent chance you'll bat again. But if you have a halfway competent reliever in, then your best bet is putting in your best defense. And if your bullpen does have a 5.50 season ERA, then you have bigger problems to worry about.

 

No, it's not necessarily the best bet. Even a halfway competent reliever is prone to lose a lead on walks and HRs, things that have nothing to do with 1b defense.

 

It's a far cry from the "obvious" move many would like to paint it as.

 

Why have you made this out to be just about first base defense anyway? I think it applies to any position.

 

I agree with what you said earlier about Baker. I think he took this to an extreme, substituting guys in the sixth inning, which inevitably leads to Neifi getting an at-bat...which no one wants to see.

 

I'm all about maximizing the chances to win, and with a lead in the ninth, I'm of the opinion that putting your best defense out there helps you win.

 

Other people decided to talk about Ortiz and Doug M. Replace 1st base defense with any other position and I'd feel the same way.

 

Defensive replacements that result in a huge difference in offense from that position, are not the obvious good move some believe. Even if that good batter isn't up for a while, when the double switch is involved, it can push the bad hitter up several spots, decreases pinch hitting options and, of course, takes a good bat out of the lineup.

 

I'm not saying defensive replacements are always bad. I just don't think they are anywhere close to the obvious good move people are pretending they are.

[CubinNY]

But let's take this to its logical conclusion.

 

If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy.

 

Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea.

 

So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit.

 

Having the guy on the roster in the first place is an issue with the GM.

 

How to use him if he is there is an issue with the manager.

 

Chances are if you have a guy that is good with the glove and can also hit, he probably should be starting.

 

Which is why making a late inning defensive replacement is not a good idea.

[fromthestretch]

That's not even close to being the same thing. In fact, it's like arguing the opposite. By sacrificing a guy from second to third, I'm showing a lack of faith in my team's ability to score that guy from second.

 

Defending the defensive replacement by saying you have to assume your team will get the job done is foolish. When your team loses, and the defense had nothing to do with it, you can't just say, well, I put the right guys in, they just didn't do the job. Similarly, when you sac bunt, but don't end up scoring, you can't just say, well, I did the right moves, they just didn't execute.

 

A defensive replacement is most likely not going to make any difference defensively in the 9th inning. The odds of him making any difference may or may not be any higher than the odds of him making a similarly negative impact at the plate after the team loses the lead.

 

The problem is people are assuming the starter will be a liablity on defense while the replacement will prevent a run. And at the same time, they are ignoring the offensive difference. You can't do that. This is the same type of conventional thinking that permeates throughtout the game. It sounds like it makes sense, but it might not actually improve your teams chances at all.

 

Sure, there are games when the starter will let you down and a run will score. But there are also games when the lead will be lost despite making the defensive change. And you will fail to regain the lead thanks to a weakened lineup. You have to take it all into account, not just the simple notion that Player A is a better defender than Player B, therefore, I'm making the change.

 

This doesn't even take into account the rather dubious way many people just defensive quality, nor the possibility that enterting a game cold may negate some of a defenders advantage over the regular.

 

First and foremost, rarely is a sac bunt "the right move." I think you and I can both agree on that.

 

Secondly, you do have to trust your players to execute. If you put the best team out there and they don't execute, what the hell can you do?

[goonys evil twin]

First and foremost, rarely is a sac bunt "the right move." I think you and I can both agree on that.

 

Secondly, you do have to trust your players to execute. If you put the best team out there and they don't execute, what the hell can you do?

 

The best defender does not make the best team.

 

You defended a move by saying you have to trust the players. Making a change already indicates you don't trust your players, and simply trusting them is not justification enough for making the move. You have to make the best move for the team, and often times in baseball, that is no move at all. A defensive upgrade is not necessarily the best move just becasue it's a defensive upgrade. There are other factors to consider, and you can't dismiss them simply by saying you trust your players to make those other factors moot.

[fromthestretch]

First and foremost, rarely is a sac bunt "the right move." I think you and I can both agree on that.

 

Secondly, you do have to trust your players to execute. If you put the best team out there and they don't execute, what the hell can you do?

 

The best defender does not make the best team.

 

You defended a move by saying you have to trust the players. Making a change already indicates you don't trust your players, and simply trusting them is not justification enough for making the move. You have to make the best move for the team, and often times in baseball, that is no move at all. A defensive upgrade is not necessarily the best move just becasue it's a defensive upgrade. There are other factors to consider, and you can't dismiss them simply by saying you trust your players to make those other factors moot.

 

For most of the game I agree with you. But if I have a lead in the ninth, I'd certainly be more inclined to put the better defender to help keep that lead.

[goonys evil twin]

For most of the game I agree with you. But if I have a lead in the ninth, I'd certainly be more inclined to put the better defender to help keep that lead.

 

Given the discussion, it's obvious you would.

 

I'm just saying that doesn't necessarily improve your teams chances to win, so it can't just be assumed to be the best move.

[fromthestretch]

But let's take this to its logical conclusion.

 

If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy.

 

Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea.

 

So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit.

 

Having the guy on the roster in the first place is an issue with the GM.

 

How to use him if he is there is an issue with the manager.

 

Chances are if you have a guy that is good with the glove and can also hit, he probably should be starting.

 

Which is why making a late inning defensive replacement is not a good idea.

 

???

 

Of course you're not going to replace a guy in the field that is already good with the glove and can hit with a guy that is good with the glove and can't hit.

[Magnetic Curses]

First and foremost, rarely is a sac bunt "the right move." I think you and I can both agree on that.

 

Secondly, you do have to trust your players to execute. If you put the best team out there and they don't execute, what the hell can you do?

 

The best defender does not make the best team.

 

You defended a move by saying you have to trust the players. Making a change already indicates you don't trust your players, and simply trusting them is not justification enough for making the move. You have to make the best move for the team, and often times in baseball, that is no move at all. A defensive upgrade is not necessarily the best move just becasue it's a defensive upgrade. There are other factors to consider, and you can't dismiss them simply by saying you trust your players to make those other factors moot.

 

For most of the game I agree with you. But if I have a lead in the ninth, I'd certainly be more inclined to put the better defender to help keep that lead.

 

i think that the benefits of doing that are negligible at best.

 

the chances that the player at said position will make an error to cost the team the game are far less than the chances that the opposing team will tie the score through hitting a home run or driving the ball into a gap, thus making it likely that the player in question will have to come to bat.

[RynoRules]

First and foremost, rarely is a sac bunt "the right move." I think you and I can both agree on that.

 

Secondly, you do have to trust your players to execute. If you put the best team out there and they don't execute, what the hell can you do?

 

The best defender does not make the best team.

 

You defended a move by saying you have to trust the players. Making a change already indicates you don't trust your players, and simply trusting them is not justification enough for making the move. You have to make the best move for the team, and often times in baseball, that is no move at all. A defensive upgrade is not necessarily the best move just becasue it's a defensive upgrade. There are other factors to consider, and you can't dismiss them simply by saying you trust your players to make those other factors moot.

 

For most of the game I agree with you. But if I have a lead in the ninth, I'd certainly be more inclined to put the better defender to help keep that lead.

 

i think that the benefits of doing that are negligible at best.

 

the chances that the player at said position will make an error to cost the team the game are far less than the chances that the opposing team will tie the score through hitting a home run or driving the ball into a gap, thus making it likely that the player in question will have to come to bat.

 

OK, but why take the risk?