Defensive Replacements: Are They Worthwhile

[StylesClash]

We've seen Joe Maddon, during the playoffs, have an affinity for late inning defensive replacements. Soler and Schwarber have been the victims of this process, despite the fact both have been red hot as of late at the plate. My question is whether or not the defensive ability of Coghlan and Jackson is worth missing at bats from Soler and Schwarber.

 

Personally I'm against it, especially during this past game (where the wind blowing straight out necessitates having as much offensive firepower as possible).

[BigSlick]

Defensive "ability" of Coghlan, you say

[StylesClash]

Defensive "ability" of Coghlan, you say

 

I'm not saying he's Heyward in the Outfield. Maddon thinks enough of Coghlan's defensive ability to remove Soler for him though.

[Guest]

Getting Jackson in the game with a lead is a nice benefit, he's a big improvement defensively and he isn't a zero at the plate either. I didn't have a problem with Denorfia's usage today, he's better than Coghlan defensively and with a 4 run lead you optimize your chances by letting him play the 9th.

 

I'm not a big fan of Denorfia getting at bats in games that require save situations when he was inserted as a pure defensive replacement. I'm also not a big fan of Coghlan as a defensive replacement for Soler/Schwarber, although in today's usage it's more mild because of exactly how it happened with the pinch hit/double-switch combo.

[Cubswin11]

Overall I'd say yes, especially in Jackson's case as he's probably the best defensive OF on the team. How Denorfia was used tonight I guess I'm also fine with tho idk if him or Coghlan are really all that much better than Schwarbs or Soler.

[chuckywang]

Think about it in terms of game theory. Assume Cubs have a lead in the 8th with Soler's lineup spot far away (7-8 batters away).

 

Would you rather:

 

1) Have a better defense on the field protecting the lead with a worse bat that might not even come up to bat again in the game

 

or

 

2) Sacrifice defense for a better bat on the chance that you might need that bat in extras or something?

 

Without a doubt I would go with (1)

[Sammys Boombox]

Not to just grab a random case, but that's exactly what I'm going to do.

 

If Nelson Cruz is removed for defensive purposes in game 6 of the 2011 World Series the Cardinals fans are tweeting #11forSTL this week.

[Tracer Bullet]

If neither Cahill nor Wood was going to pitch the 8th, taking Soler out in the 6th was stupid. There, I said it. Drove me crazy.

[Fro]

The strategy's a pretty good one, although I would have been tempted to leave Soler in for one more at-bat.

[seanimal]

new nsbb drinking game: anytime someone uses the term "game theory" in a post, do a shot of mallort

[jersey cubs fan]

Think about it in terms of game theory. Assume Cubs have a lead in the 8th with Soler's lineup spot far away (7-8 batters away).

 

Would you rather:

 

1) Have a better defense on the field protecting the lead with a worse bat that might not even come up to bat again in the game

 

or

 

2) Sacrifice defense for a better bat on the chance that you might need that bat in extras or something?

 

Without a doubt I would go with (1)

That's the theory, the question is if the actual numbers support it. I think that in a wind aided game with everything blowing out that the defense might not be as important as it would in a game under normal conditions.

[sneakypower]

Think about it in terms of game theory. Assume Cubs have a lead in the 8th with Soler's lineup spot far away (7-8 batters away).

 

Would you rather:

 

1) Have a better defense on the field protecting the lead with a worse bat that might not even come up to bat again in the game

 

or

 

2) Sacrifice defense for a better bat on the chance that you might need that bat in extras or something?

 

Without a doubt I would go with (1)

That's the theory, the question is if the actual numbers support it. I think that in a wind aided game with everything blowing out that the defense might not be as important as it would in a game under normal conditions.

if more would-be outs fall in for hits around your bad fielders, then chances of a crooked number via wind-aided FBs are higher though

 

making defense even more important?

[jersey cubs fan]

Think about it in terms of game theory. Assume Cubs have a lead in the 8th with Soler's lineup spot far away (7-8 batters away).

 

Would you rather:

 

1) Have a better defense on the field protecting the lead with a worse bat that might not even come up to bat again in the game

 

or

 

2) Sacrifice defense for a better bat on the chance that you might need that bat in extras or something?

 

Without a doubt I would go with (1)

That's the theory, the question is if the actual numbers support it. I think that in a wind aided game with everything blowing out that the defense might not be as important as it would in a game under normal conditions.

if more would-be outs fall in for hits around your bad fielders, then chances of a crooked number via wind-aided FBs are higher though

 

making defense even more important?

Yeah, that's possible. I just don't think it's that crazy of a question, in extreme dong condition situations.

[Guest]

It depends on when said player is likely to bat again. I didn't like taking Soler out last night, but I trust Maddon to make the correct decisions.

[biittner77]

Think about it in terms of game theory. Assume Cubs have a lead in the 8th with Soler's lineup spot far away (7-8 batters away).

 

Would you rather:

 

1) Have a better defense on the field protecting the lead with a worse bat that might not even come up to bat again in the game

 

or

 

2) Sacrifice defense for a better bat on the chance that you might need that bat in extras or something?

 

Without a doubt I would go with (1)

That's the theory, the question is if the actual numbers support it. I think that in a wind aided game with everything blowing out that the defense might not be as important as it would in a game under normal conditions.

 

I think it would be pretty hard to quantify if it's worth it or not. I'd guess that most of the time it doesn't really factor in at all. Or at least I can't readily think of a lot of examples where the defensive replacement made a huge play that potentially could have affected the outcome.

[Guest]

Think about it in terms of game theory. Assume Cubs have a lead in the 8th with Soler's lineup spot far away (7-8 batters away).

 

Would you rather:

 

1) Have a better defense on the field protecting the lead with a worse bat that might not even come up to bat again in the game

 

or

 

2) Sacrifice defense for a better bat on the chance that you might need that bat in extras or something?

 

Without a doubt I would go with (1)

That's the theory, the question is if the actual numbers support it. I think that in a wind aided game with everything blowing out that the defense might not be as important as it would in a game under normal conditions.

 

I think it would be pretty hard to quantify if it's worth it or not. I'd guess that most of the time it doesn't really factor in at all. Or at least I can't readily think of a lot of examples where the defensive replacement made a huge play that potentially could have affected the outcome.

There are opportunity costs associated with choosing an inferior fielders that are difficult to quantify. I think it makes less of an impact in the outfield except at the margins (great vs. terrible) than in the infield.