goonys evil twin

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.

Probably not a good thing for the fans of those teams in the short-term, but probably a good thing if you like the idea of baseball becoming more of a worldwide sport (and getting reinstated into the Olympics).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you can't tell the difference between not wanting to trade Murton, Pie and a pitching prospect for Willis, and not thinking Willis could help the team, well, then, you're something. But there is a significant difference.

I'm not sure being a c/3b is all that much more easy on the body than just being a catcher in the minors. There is a lot more use of DH's down there, and catchers often get to do that. That being said, 250 fewer games is meaningfuly, but it does not negate the 6200 major league innings, and the repeated injuries he's absorbed. I'm not saying he's going to fall apart today. I'm talking mostly about Barret post-2007, when he's a free agent with over 7000 innings behind the plate in the majors, and 31. Like Lee and Ramirez this past year, Barrett is a pending free agent. And I think he's a huge question.

What do you do with him after 2007? He'll be a free agent. Do you sign him to a deal comparable to Veritek's? Do you let him walk?

I wouldn't expect it to be enough of a discount to offset that likelihood that in his 30's he will probably no longer be what he was in his 20's. That's the life of a catcher. They break down fast, or move positions. Barrett will be approaching 7000 innings behind the plate after next season. Guys don't last much past 5000-6000. Veritek is now at 6600, and breaking down (while Barrett missed as much time as him already this year). My bad, Barrett is actually already at 6200, and should be well past 7000 after next season, unless he misses even more time than this year.

Both are free agents following this season. I think it's a pretty safe bet to say Wells, as a 28 y/o CF, has a better chance to stay highly productive, longer, than the 29 y/o C who has a long list of injuries and plays a position where guys break down quickly. Ack, that's the second time I've messed that up too. Barrett hasn't been catching that long, and hasn't been hurt in 3 years. I think his positional value and the fact he'll be (much) cheaper to retain than Wells wins out over being further into his prime. There's also the thing that making that trade makes it harder to improve the offense since finding a new catcher that can hit is much more difficult than upgrading CF. Barrett has to been a catcher for long. He's logged nearly as many innings there as AJP, and is at the stage of his career, nearly 6000 innings, when lots of guys start breaking down. And how can you say he hasn't been hurt in 3 years? He was hurt multiple times this year, as well as last year. He was healthy in 2004, but he's missed time in just about every other season, and he had only logged about 3000 innings behind the plate before that season. We have to stop pretending Barrett is relatively new to the catcher position. You have guys like Fisk and Rodriguez who lasted a long time as productive guys at the position, but they had the DH to rest themselves. Bench and Berra switched positions in their early 30's. The Cubs have a decision with Barrett coming very soon. And the wise one might very well be to let somebody else squeeze the last bit of juice out of his catcher's frame, or move him to another position.

Wow, talk about 4 games that I could give a crap about The Rose Bowl will be great.

Both are free agents following this season. I think it's a pretty safe bet to say Wells, as a 28 y/o CF, has a better chance to stay highly productive, longer, than the 29 y/o C who has a long list of injuries and plays a position where guys break down quickly.

The Cardinals with Yadier Molina And before that, the Angels won with a pretty young Molina. The Yankees won when Posada was an inexperienced kid, Florida won with a young Charles Johnson. Atlanta won with a young Javy Lopez. Aside from those, the Red Sox rose to serious contender in the late 90's when Varitek was young, same with Minnesota with AJ. The wise old catcher is a baseball cliche, but it's pretty clear you don't need one to win.

it would be tempting. i wonder if the bo sox would give up kottaras for howry or eyre? I dont think Hendry would do that deal. Hendry probably has to win now to keep his job. Kottaras needs more time to develop before he can become an elite catcher. Does he have to be an elite catcher right now for the Cubs to win in that scenario?

It doesn't get much more ignorant than this.

Yeah, he's no great trade target. But he doesn't suck.

oh come on, we can top that I'd assume that whatever we're rumored to be sending to NY for Sheffield would be better sent to Philly. Benitez sucks. Benitez ERA+ in 2006: 128 In 2004: 317 Career: 147 Benitez sucked in 2005, but he does not suck. He's no worse than Scott Eyre, that's for sure.

That's only if you can find a RF that's significantly better than Wells. The defensive difference between Wells and Jones in CF is probably an issue.

Wells is better than Jones. For one, he's a legit CF, so his value, relative to his position, is much higher. Also, he's a consisent over 100 OPS+ producer, whereas Jones is routinely below 100 (ie, below average). Jones has a career OPS+ of 101, while Wells is 112. So, Vernon is significantly more productive already, still in his prime with a shot to improve. And he plays a position where production is scarce. I don't think he's a great option, but he's a far better choice for CF than Jones was for RF, and much better than most other options out there, especially including Pierre.