Is a platoon a good idea?

[CuseCubFan69]

I saw a debate about platoons earlier and I was curious what everyone thought about them. I would like to see 8 all-stars start but that just isn't possible with so many teams and the Yankees around. 2 things I like about platoons are maximize production and it gives bench players more Playing time. I like the bench guys getting some swings to stay in somewhat of a groove and if it's a good platoon you have a good player off the bench too.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I thought Platoon was a good movie...but it's not a very good date movie.

[cheapseats]

I guess it's hard to make a blanket statement because every team is constructed differently, but in most cases platoons are a smart way to maximize production.

 

Just one more thing Earl Weaver got right...

[cheapseats]

I thought Platoon was a good movie...but it's not a very good date movie.

 

How would you know, Vance?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I thought Platoon was a good movie...but it's not a very good date movie.

 

How would you know, Vance?

 

Platoon was released in 1986. I had many dating years between then and the current Mrs.

 

Let me reiterate...not a good date movie.

[CuseCubFan69]

I thought Platoon was a good movie...but it's not a very good date movie.

 

How would you know, Vance?

 

Platoon was released in 1986. I had many dating years between then and the current Mrs.

 

Let me reiterate...not a good date movie.

 

My wife hated that movie.

[CubinNY]

Anyone who read the thread knows my positon.

 

A platoon is a necessary evil for a mid to low payroll team.

 

A platoon is an inefficient use of scarce resources both in terms of dollars and 25 man roster spots unless:

 

A) the short end player is cheap

B) The team is in the AL

 

The definiton of a platoon is that one player is not good for some portion of the time. It's fine to have bench players that can hit from either the left or right side of the plate e.g., a lefty on the bench with power.

 

My position is not finite, I can be pursuaded, but there are oppotunity costs involved.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think if one can put together a productive platoon for a price cheaper than that production will get you from one player, then it makes sense.

 

For example if one could get a platoon that would produce a 900 OPS and the combination of the parts make 10-11 million, it's a good idea as that is the going rate for a 900+ OPS player.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

BP had a nice article a while ago about the benefit of platoons and how more teams should utilize them.

[Guest]

BP had a nice article a while ago about the benefit of platoons and how more teams should utilize them.

 

one problem is that players do not always produce at their split levels when platooned.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

BP had a nice article a while ago about the benefit of platoons and how more teams should utilize them.

 

one problem is that players do not always produce at their split levels when platooned.

 

That's true, but I think that there's enough guys who have been in mostly platoon situations(e.g. getting Dellucci and Craig Wilson for a RF tandem) so that problem can be minimized.

[NewUserName]

Besides Weavers Orioles how many other successful teams did a lot of platooning? I can think of the 86 Mets and early 90s Phillies. 89 Cubs did some. I am not against it. I just kind of wonder why it isnt done more. I also would like to know why it isnt done more. Does it take the right kind of player(makeup not splits). Are managers just reluctant to do it.

[BigbadB]

Besides Weavers Orioles how many other successful teams did a lot of platooning? I can think of the 86 Mets and early 90s Phillies. 89 Cubs did some. I am not against it. I just kind of wonder why it isnt done more. I also would like to know why it isnt done more. Does it take the right kind of player(makeup not splits). Are managers just reluctant to do it.

 

I think there's a lot of reasons that a manager wouldn't do it. Some of these guys who should be platooned are getting everyday starter money. Some guys still put up such great numbers on their split, that their weakness isn't exposed as much. In some cases, a player can make the all star team even though they shouldn't be batting against particular pitchers. Some managers don't pay attention to splits. The Cubs completely ignored it last year with Jones. They seem to be more interested in BA w/RISP than vs. LHP or vs. RHP.

 

I disagree that platoons are only for mid to small market teams. I believe the Yankees were employing platoons for an aging Paul O'Neill and Scott Brosius during their World Series runs. I want to say they also slowly groomed Cano into his everyday job with a platoon. Melky Cabrera is another guy that they could give a start to occasionally because his splits might be better than one of the other OF's.

 

A platoon can keep your bench guys sharper at the plate. It gets them more involved with the games. Who didn't like the Henry Rodriguez/Glenallen Hill platoon?

 

If you can't get a stud player that can hit RHP and LHP equally well, the next best thing is to get 2 guys at equal or less cost to do the same.

 

The other thing a platoon provides is depth. Last year is another perfect example for the Cubs. The Cubs had no depth whatsoever. If Murton got hurt, who plays in his place? Angel Pagan? Freddy Bynum? John Mabry? None of those guys have shown they should get quality playing time. Signing a guy like Cliff Floyd might push Murton to the bench more often than if he wasn't here, but what Floyd brings with the bat is more than likely going to be more productive than what Murton can bring with the bat against RHP. Now you have a stud player that will still get plenty of PT. And if someone gets hurt, you don't lose a single step.

 

Floyd can even play some 1b, and I can't even begin to tell you how much more valuable a guy like Floyd is when you compare him to John Mabry.

 

If you sign Floyd, yep, he's probably going to take at bats from Murton. But, a platoon allows you to keep your starting guys rested more, gives the bench guys more PT to keep them sharp, and just gives the team many more options over the course of a season. And one of those options is trade value at the deadline. If Floyd is tearing it up and Murton is having an all star caliber season, Floyd becomes a nice trade option. Same can be said of Jacque Jones.

 

When Cleveland was in the heart of their mini-dynasty, they were employing platoons. They had so much talent, they could afford to.

[baseball7897]

BP had a nice article a while ago about the benefit of platoons and how more teams should utilize them.

 

one problem is that players do not always produce at their split levels when platooned.

 

That's true, but I think that there's enough guys who have been in mostly platoon situations(e.g. getting Dellucci and Craig Wilson for a RF tandem) so that problem can be minimized.

 

Dellucci and Wilson for a platoon has the be the worst idea I have heard in a long time.

[abuck1220]

BP had a nice article a while ago about the benefit of platoons and how more teams should utilize them.

 

one problem is that players do not always produce at their split levels when platooned.

 

That's true, but I think that there's enough guys who have been in mostly platoon situations(e.g. getting Dellucci and Craig Wilson for a RF tandem) so that problem can be minimized.

 

Dellucci and Wilson for a platoon has the be the worst idea I have heard in a long time.

 

at least you've provided a lot of support for your position.

[UK1679666180]

http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/content/printer_friendly/tb/y2004/m02/d25/c641479.jsp

 

Here's Piniella on platoon situations back when he was in TB.

 

Personally, I like platoons and especially if a staff is going to keep 12 pitchers it is wise to have least 2 bench players with the production to start on many lesser clubs.

 

I think someone such as Preston Wilson as a 4th OF'er could play CF and platoon with Jacque Jones vs. LH'ers and still plenty of ABs and provide value.

 

Maybe go after someone like Huff as well to play LF/RF/3B/1B and he could possibly platoon with Murton and fill in the area previously mentioned.

 

It'd be expensive and take away from the potential pitching funds, but could be done properly and not take away production from the rotation.

[Guest]

BP had a nice article a while ago about the benefit of platoons and how more teams should utilize them.

 

one problem is that players do not always produce at their split levels when platooned.

 

That's true, but I think that there's enough guys who have been in mostly platoon situations(e.g. getting Dellucci and Craig Wilson for a RF tandem) so that problem can be minimized.

 

Dellucci and Wilson for a platoon has the be the worst idea I have heard in a long time.

 

at least you've provided a lot of support for your position.

Statistically speaking, of course. :twisted:

[goonys evil twin]

Platoons are not ideal, but they can be a great tool for maximizing production out of a position in a cost efficient manner. If you can't get a guy who hits well vs LHP and RHP, and can only find a guy who can do one or the other, it would be much better to employ his counterpart as well. Platoon partners also add to the bench in games they are not playing.

[cheapseats]

Platoons are not ideal, but they can be a great tool for maximizing production out of a position in a cost efficient manner. If you can't get a guy who hits well vs LHP and RHP, and can only find a guy who can do one or the other, it would be much better to employ his counterpart as well. Platoon partners also add to the bench in games they are not playing.

 

Right. Ideally a team would stack its lineup with guys who hit well against both lefties and righties, but that's almost impossible in reality.

 

Also, I've seen a few posters mention that platooning is something that is only practiced by weaker teams or low-payroll teams, but that's far from the truth.

 

The Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays, for example, all used platoons at some point during 2006. The Yankees platooned Bernie Williams and Aaron Guiel before they got Abreu. The Red Sox platooned Trot Nixon. The Blue Jays platooned Reed Johnson and Frank Catalanotto before Johnson proved himself worthy of facing lefties and righties. The Jays also platooned Alex Rios and Eric Hinske for a while.

[CubinNY]

Platoons are not ideal, but they can be a great tool for maximizing production out of a position in a cost efficient manner. If you can't get a guy who hits well vs LHP and RHP, and can only find a guy who can do one or the other, it would be much better to employ his counterpart as well. Platoon partners also add to the bench in games they are not playing.

 

Right. Ideally a team would stack its lineup with guys who hit well against both lefties and righties, but that's almost impossible in reality.

 

Also, I've seen a few posters mention that platooning is something that is only practiced by weaker teams or low-payroll teams, but that's far from the truth.

 

The Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays, for example, all used platoons at some point during 2006. The Yankees platooned Bernie Williams and Aaron Guiel before they got Abreu. The Red Sox platooned Trot Nixon. The Blue Jays platooned Reed Johnson and Frank Catalanotto before Johnson proved himself worthy of facing lefties and righties. The Jays also platooned Alex Rios and Eric Hinske for a while.

 

Funny that you mention the AL teams. A platoon makes much more sense in the AL with the DH.

[goonys evil twin]

Funny that you mention the AL teams. A platoon makes much more sense in the AL with the DH.

 

Didn't the Cardinals more or less use a platoon? The Mets went into the season with a plan to platoon both corner OF spots, and ended up adding 2B to the mix. The Dodgers basically platooned a couple positions throughout the season.

 

Very few teams have 8 guys plan the vast majority of the games at their position, AL or NL.

 

Your stance on this issue makes less and less sense the more I read it. I just don't get it.

[CubinNY]

Funny that you mention the AL teams. A platoon makes much more sense in the AL with the DH.

 

Didn't the Cardinals more or less use a platoon? The Mets went into the season with a plan to platoon both corner OF spots, and ended up adding 2B to the mix. The Dodgers basically platooned a couple positions throughout the season.

 

Very few teams have 8 guys plan the vast majority of the games at their position, AL or NL.

 

Your stance on this issue makes less and less sense the more I read it. I just don't get it.

 

A platoon is a weakness. The fact that this team or that team uses one is irrelevent. Sometimes the weakness can be overcome becuase of the overall strength of the team. Nevertheless, a platoon makes more sense in the AL becuase a team doesn't use it's bench as often.

 

However, a platoon is better than just playing a crappy player in certian situations. But why would a team want to plan for that situation? What I mean is, why would the Cubs get JJ and pay him the amount of money they have if to be a part time player. Now that doesn't make sense.

[UK1679666180]

Funny that you mention the AL teams. A platoon makes much more sense in the AL with the DH.

 

Didn't the Cardinals more or less use a platoon? The Mets went into the season with a plan to platoon both corner OF spots, and ended up adding 2B to the mix. The Dodgers basically platooned a couple positions throughout the season.

 

Very few teams have 8 guys plan the vast majority of the games at their position, AL or NL.

 

Your stance on this issue makes less and less sense the more I read it. I just don't get it.

 

A platoon is a weakness. The fact that this team or that team uses one is irrelevent. Sometimes the weakness can be overcome becuase of the overall strength of the team. Nevertheless, a platoon makes more sense in the AL becuase a team doesn't use it's bench as often.

 

However, a platoon is better than just playing a crappy player in certian situations. But why would a team want to plan for that situation? What I mean is, why would the Cubs get JJ and pay him the amount of money they have if to be a part time player. Now that doesn't make sense.

 

The avail. of players often dictates whether or not you have to use a platoon to maximize production. If you have a huge hole if RF like the Cubs did before signing Jacque Jones as well as other big holes (the Cubs needed a CF, RF, SS, bullpen, and SP heading into '06), you might not be able to ink a player who's production is good enough vs. both to merit not going with a split to get the most out of it.

 

Of course, a LH'ed part-time player can have significant playing time and in the case of Jones, well worth his current salary.

[goonys evil twin]

A platoon is a weakness. The fact that this team or that team uses one is irrelevent.

 

A platoon is not a weakness. A platoon is a necessity to counteract the weakness of individual players. A platoon is how you make the most of a less than ideal situation.

 

This is like saying "studying hard is a weakness" if a student doesn't just immediately absord everything he is taught.

[CubinNY]

A platoon is a weakness. The fact that this team or that team uses one is irrelevent.

 

A platoon is not a weakness. A platoon is a necessity to counteract the weakness of individual players. A platoon is how you make the most of a less than ideal situation.

 

This is like saying "studying hard is a weakness" if a student doesn't just immediately absord everything he is taught.

 

It is a wekness becuase a team is paying two guy to play one positon.