Is a platoon a good idea?

[UK1679666180]

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.

 

And one guy to come off the bench. It's not as if they're paying two salaries worth the going rate of two starters. Jones and a platoon partner would be pretty productive and cheap in the grand scheme of things.

[cheapseats]

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.

 

So Z should pitch 162 complete games this year so the Cubs don't have to pay more than 1 pitcher? :-s

 

In all seriousness, I'm confused as to what you think a bench is for, anyway.

[CubinNY]

So Z should pitch 162 complete games this year so the Cubs don't have to pay more than 1 pitcher? :-s

 

Using an aburdity does not futher your positon. It only weakens it.

 

In all seriousness, I'm confused as to what you think a bench is for, anyway.

 

A bench and platoon are not the same thing. The very idea of a platoon is that a player is going to be inefective for a certian portion of the season (N - 1/3 for a lefty and N - 2/3 for a righty). If one is in the game the other is not going to be effective. So having the inefective player on the bench is worthless.

 

A bench is for scoring runs, primarily. Now, having two guys on the bench with some power that can hit either righty's or lefty's is a good idea.

[CubColtPacer]

So Z should pitch 162 complete games this year so the Cubs don't have to pay more than 1 pitcher? :-s

 

Using an aburdity does not futher your positon. It only weakens it.

 

In all seriousness, I'm confused as to what you think a bench is for, anyway.

 

A bench and platoon are not the same thing. The very idea of a platoon is that a player is going to be inefective for a certian portion of the season (N - 1/3 for a lefty and N - 2/3 for a righty). If one is in the game the other is not going to be effective. So having the inefective player on the bench is worthless.

 

A bench is for scoring runs, primarily. Now, having two guys on the bench with some power that can hit either righty's or lefty's is a good idea.

 

Pitchers don't stay the same through the game-the player who is on the bench can become an effective weapon with a pitching change.

[goonys evil twin]

A bench is for scoring runs, primarily. Now, having two guys on the bench with some power that can hit either righty's or lefty's is a good idea.

 

And why can't you do that just because you have a platoon?

 

Seriously, you are making zero sense.

[cheapseats]

So Z should pitch 162 complete games this year so the Cubs don't have to pay more than 1 pitcher? :-s

 

Using an aburdity does not futher your positon. It only weakens it.

 

Hey! Not only did I use a smiley, but I used the phrase, "In all seriousness" after that. I think you're being testy.

 

In all seriousness, I'm confused as to what you think a bench is for, anyway.

 

A bench and platoon are not the same thing. The very idea of a platoon is that a player is going to be inefective for a certian portion of the season (N - 1/3 for a lefty and N - 2/3 for a righty). If one is in the game the other is not going to be effective. So having the inefective player on the bench is worthless.

 

A bench is for scoring runs, primarily. Now, having two guys on the bench with some power that can hit either righty's or lefty's is a good idea.

 

I agree with you about having power on the bench. I've hated the construction of the Cubs' bench in recent years. I don't understand the Hendry/Dusty fascination with utility bench players who have little pop. I'd rather have Russell Branyan on the bench than Jose Macias no matter how many positions Jose can play.

 

But I think you're creating a false dilemma. Platooning isn't an either/or type of situation. If you platoon, you don't have to weaken the bench, and you don't have to increase payroll.

 

Jacque Jones, for example, had the 11th highest VORP of any RF last year, so even though he's not a favorite here, he performed well enough to be an every day player and to be played like an every day player.

 

But the Cubs could have gained about 100 points in OPS if they had put Michael Restovich in the lineup when a lefty was one the mound. They would have gotten more production out of RF, had Jacque's bat on the bench if/when the other team brought in a righty reliever, and they wouldn't have added payroll as Restovich was making league minimum.

 

I'm not even arguing that Restovich is a very good player, but he would have been a better use of a roster spot than John Mabry, for example, who offered nothing off the bench.

[CubinNY]

A bench is for scoring runs, primarily. Now, having two guys on the bench with some power that can hit either righty's or lefty's is a good idea.

 

And why can't you do that just because you have a platoon?

 

Seriously, you are making zero sense.

 

I don't think I am being clear.

 

There are a number of variables to consider. However, one cannot just use career splits to determine if a platoon will be effective. Using career splits assumes regular playing time. This is one case (perhaps the only case) where I agree with the conventional wisdom crowd. I cannot see how a straight platoon would be better than just having one guy who hits reasonably well against both lefites and righties. If a team has to use a platoon, I'd like to see the short end guy be pretty cheap, have a good power and good plate coverage at the very least. IMO, that rules out the vast majority of bench players becuase if the guy had all those things he would likely be starting.

 

My thinking is that in a platoon situation it is axiomatic that one guy is going to be relativiely inefective for some portion of the time. For that portion of the time it really doesn't matter that he's on the bench at all unless he's going to hit for the pitcher. In which case I would assume that there is better option to use off the bench.

 

I am not saying a bench player shouldn't ever start. I am not saying a team should never use a platoon. Necessity may dictate that they should.

 

What I am saying is that why would a team like the Cubs, flush with cash, and with tradeable assets go into a seaon plan to use a platoon.

[BigbadB]

What I am saying is that why would a team like the Cubs, flush with cash, and with tradeable assets go into a seaon plan to use a platoon.

 

Because Jacque Jones cannot hit lefties?

 

If Soriano was at 2b and in a dream world far away, JD Drew was signed to play CF, would a platoon of Jacque Jones/Mark DeRosa not make sense?

 

Between the two of them, they'll make approximately 9m. If for 9m, I see:

 

.342 .394 .589 .983 (DeRosa)

.303 .358 .528 .886 (Jones)

 

production out of RF, I can't say I would complain.

 

The combined production of those two would match or quite possibly be cheaper than any single player who could provide that type of production (outside of the top young players in the league that haven't gotten their big payday yet and are usually not available).

 

Even better, is the fact one of them makes for a very decent guy coming off the bench in games the other guy started. It's bench depth besides being called a platoon.

[abuck1220]

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.

 

no you're not. you're paying one guy to start and one guy to be one of a handful of bench players. and then those guys switch roles on some days.

[Diffusion]

What I am saying is that why would a team like the Cubs, flush with cash, and with tradeable assets go into a seaon plan to use a platoon.

 

Because Jacque Jones cannot hit lefties?

 

If Soriano was at 2b and in a dream world far away, JD Drew was signed to play CF, would a platoon of Jacque Jones/Mark DeRosa not make sense?

 

Between the two of them, they'll make approximately 9m. If for 9m, I see:

 

.342 .394 .589 .983 (DeRosa)

.303 .358 .528 .886 (Jones)

 

production out of RF, I can't say I would complain.

 

The combined production of those two would match or quite possibly be cheaper than any single player who could provide that type of production (outside of the top young players in the league that haven't gotten their big payday yet and are usually not available).

 

Even better, is the fact one of them makes for a very decent guy coming off the bench in games the other guy started. It's bench depth besides being called a platoon.

 

Further to your point, based on last year's splits as you partially quoted them above, assuming a platoon that's 85% efficient, assuming that being platooned has no discernable effect on their performance, DeJones' combined production works out at .305/.357/.522 at a payroll cost of about $9-10m next year.

 

Based on their career splits, in other words assuming that none of the progress either player made last year will carry over, again making the same assumptions, DeJones' combined production still works out at .290/.341/.472 at the same price.