fromthestretch

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I don't believe that statement is very accurate. He made his debut at age 20 in 2004. In 2005, he made 32 starts. Yes, he missed some time this year, but that hardly makes him "hurt most of his career." He finished with 13. The following pitchers had more losses (I will stress, as I said before, that this is not the best way to judge pitchers): Rodrigo Lopez (18) Ramon Ortiz (16) Jason Marquis (16) Carlos Silva (15) Matt Morris (15) Aaron Cook (15) Mark Hendrickson (15) Zach Duke (15) Jamie Moyer (14) Greg Maddux (14) Jeff Weaver (14) Jake Peavy (14) Kelvim Escobar (14) Felix Hernandez (14) Jarod Washburn (14) A lot of guys must have had really bad Septembers if Pettitte led the majors in losses for most of the year.

It doesn't get much more ignorant than this. that was a laugh out louder, goony. but i'm still firmly in the "requiring a starter" camp, though. make no mistake, retart. Thanks, I just had some of my Coca-Cola shoot out of my nose. Pedro had a Coke and a smile.

I'd like to think that most people can agree on the following points: 1. If you have a lead going into the ninth, and you happen to have a player on your bench that is better defensively at a position where someone else is currently playing, it's not a bad idea to put in the better defender at that time in an effort to limit your opponent's ability to score. 2. Carrying a guy on your bench all season solely for his glovework or for the primary purpose of using him as a late-inning defensive replacement is not the smartest use of a roster spot.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all. using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway. baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job. good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning. i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game. Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi. yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them. Not only that, but weren't they both the best defensive first basemen on their respective teams as well as being the STARTING first basemen? It's not like they were brought in during the late innings for their defense, nor was there anyone else on those teams that would have replaced them. They were THE first basemen on their teams. Considering that most of this debate has centered around the logic (or lack thereof) behind carrying a defensive specialist on your bench throughout the course of a season, I don't see how Durham or Buckner are relevant to this dicussion.

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? I think he does. How does he work with a pitching staff? How does he call a game? He still is pretty young. Which means he still has alot to learn. I dont think the Cubs could go into 07 with a young catching group. I'm be more interested in how well he hits than how he calls a game. The pitcher can always shake him off if he doesn't like the signs.

There are so many things wrong with this post, I'm not sure where to begin. Pettitte didn't lose the most games in the majors. He didn't even lose the most games in the NL. The whole Rogers on roids thing is completely baseless. Liriano, if healthy, is much better than Willis. Kazmir, if healthy, is better than Willis. Edited to add: If you're going to use losses to judge a pitcher (which I don't recommend), as you did with Pettitte, then perhaps you should look at how many games Willis lost this season.

Well, if the Cubs want to strive for 83 wins next year, they can model their team after the 2006 Cardinals. Frankly, I don't think 83 wins will equal a postseason appearance next year, so I'd prefer to sign and/or trade for guys that are better offensively than Figgins. If he can be acquired for little in return, I have no problem with Figgins in a super-sub role, outside of the fact that he's terrible defensively as an infielder. I'd prefer the Cubs don't deal a lot for him and then count on him to be the starting CF or 2B. If the Cubs are going to make a deal with the Angels for someone with some versatility, deal Izturis for his brother. that is a silly corollation imo. the cards only won 83 games because of key injuries to guys like puljos, roland, izzy & edmunds not because they had eckstein at ss. Not once did I say it was solely because of Eckstein. In fact, the words "model their team" kind of implies I was talking about the team as a whole. Even with injuries, Rolen played 142 games and had an .887 OPS which is nearly identical to his career mark. Pujols managed 535 at-bats and put up the second best OPS of his career. Edmonds hasn't exactly been immune to injuries during his career (he averages about 140 games a year), and he's not getting any younger. They knew that going into the season, although, the decline in preduction was probably slightly bigger than expected. Even still, he gave them an .821 OPS as a centerfielder, which isn't bad. Even without those injuries, that team doesn't win 90 games. They had a medicore regular season because they got mediocre production out of RF, LF, SS (yes, Eckstein), and 2B, and terrible production from their catcher. Instead of blaming injuries for limiting them to 83 wins, I'd credit Pujols and Rolen, bench players like Duncan and Spiezio, and bullpen arms such as Wainwright, Looper and Thompson for preventing them from losing even more. But I'm glad you focused on something I didn't even say, rather than how I did point out that someone like Figgins could actually have some value as a super-sub. But there are many better options for CF and 2B than Figgins, especially if you have to give up talent in return.

Unless they plan on moving Burrell to first base.

I think he saw the writing on the wall when he couldn't even beat out John Grabow as the Pirates nominee for the Holiday Inn Look Again Player of the Year Award.

IIRC, he's had some forearm problems the past couple years, similar to what Eric Chavez had this season.

Well, if the Cubs want to strive for 83 wins next year, they can model their team after the 2006 Cardinals. Frankly, I don't think 83 wins will equal a postseason appearance next year, so I'd prefer to sign and/or trade for guys that are better offensively than Figgins. If he can be acquired for little in return, I have no problem with Figgins in a super-sub role, outside of the fact that he's terrible defensively as an infielder. I'd prefer the Cubs don't deal a lot for him and then count on him to be the starting CF or 2B. If the Cubs are going to make a deal with the Angels for someone with some versatility, deal Izturis for his brother.

You must mean as an outfielder, because he's not good defensively as an infielder. There's a difference between being able to play a position and being able to play that position well. Russ McGinnis could play both corner outfield positions, both corner infield positions, and could catch. That doesn't mean he was any good at any of those positions.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? You could make the argument that it's ok to sacrifice offense for improved defense if you are going into the ninth inning with a lead, because ideally, you won't be batting again. However, there's not much reason to make that switch prior to the ninth, because your better hitters can still get you an insurance run or two.

The bolded part of your statement is not accurate. He is not a good third baseman. He's really not all that great at second either.

There is no need to eliminate a need that never existed. You don't need positional flexibility off the bench? They sucked offensively. No argument there. There is no need for guys who can play 7 positions, and play them poorly, without hitting a lick. The Cubs treated Macias's "ability" to play both IF and OF as a value worth paying extra for, when, in fact, there was no value. The only time you might need such a player, is during the course of one game, when multiple guys gets injured. But you are much better off just plugging in guys at positions for that one game, and then calling up somebody from AAA if you need them later. It's stupid to guarantee roster spots and significant money to players based on their ability to go anywhere in the field. Your bench should be able to hit, first and foremost. If you get into a position where you need such a crappy utility guy, call up somebody from the minors the next day. Don't waste the 161 games for the insurance of that 1 game where they might help you. You have 8 positions and how many bench spots? Positional flexibility is a numerical necessity. Where did I say that I advocated guys who couldn't hit on the bench? Where? I don't necessarily think you need guys capable of playing several different positions. In the NL, if you carry 11 pitchers instead of 12, you have six bench spots. You could have a catcher, a 3B, a CF, a SS, a corner outfielder, and 2B. There's a good chance the 3B (or possibly even the corner outfielder) could serve as a backup at 1B. You don't need someone that can play six different positions without playing any of them particularly well.