If Eric Young can play second base...

[Benjamin Grimm]

...can he also play shortstop?

[Edgy MD]

If he could, I would imagine he would have by now. But in nine years of pro ball, he hasn't appeared there yet. I'm led to conclude (and my eyeballs would support this) that the arm just isn't there.

[Centerfield]

I wondered that last season. That's why I thought it would have been great to see how he did there during those meaningless games so we'd have some gauge. We got nothing out of the time given to Omar Quintanilla.

[Frayed Knot]

If a player CAN play shortstop there's no way that his teams along the way (amateur, minor league, or otherwise) would opt to NOT play him at SS.

[Ceetar]

I'm not convinced he can play second base.

or LF for that matter. he's a bench guy.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, I've read that second base is his "natural position." I assume they know that because they tested his DNA.

[ashie62]

The Cubs are actively shopping SP Jeff Samardzjia.... The Ivy of Wrigley may be calling

[Frayed Knot]

I'll take non-sequiturs for $400 Alex.

[Guest sharpie]

If Jeff Samardzija can pitch...maybe he can play shortstop.

[Frayed Knot]

sharpie wrote: If Jeff Samardzija can pitch...maybe he can play shortstop.

Maybe playing tight end will help him play shortstop.

[ashie62]

Frayed Knot wrote: I'll take non-sequiturs for $400 Alex.

Referring to Eric Young at and Murphy maybe leaving by trade. I should have been more specific...

You don't have to be mean..

[Frayed Knot]

Relax ace. It was a joke based on me not knowing where you were going with the Samardzija comment.

But now that we're on the subject: Murphy may very well get traded (for Samardzija? ... hmmmmm) but if he does I don't think it's going to strictly to make room for Eric Young.
I suspect the club likes EYJr more as a 4th OFer and/or all-around versatile sub than as a starting 2Bman

[ashie62]

Personally..I'd rather have Murphy at 2B over Young but only one is tradeable...Muffy...

[Edgy MD]

I don't see why that should be true. Young was tradeable enough mid-season when he was playing terribly for the Rockies. Why should he be un-tradeable after rebounding to salvage his season and win a stolen base title?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

In a "bounce-back year," EY also posted negative offensive AND defensive value.

We can trade him, sure, in the same sense that we can all achieve our dreams, if only we put our minds to it. Are we looking to get Collin McHugh back or something?

[Edgy MD]

You're putting "bounce-back year" in quotes, but I spoke of his performance after the trade that brought him to the Mets, during which he did demonstrate positive value.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

0.9 WAR, bbRef-wise, virtually all of it with baserunning/double-play avoidance. Batting- and glove-wise, he was still below-replacement-level. Prorated over a whole season, that would be 1.5 WAR; that hypothetical season would be only the second (out of 7) in his career during which he posted ANY net-positive value above replacement-level.

[Edgy MD]

I make no claim otherwise.

[smg58]

It's worth pointing out that Young had very negative defensive numbers during his tenure in Colorado last year, and that the defensive metrics of Rockies' outfielders generally improve when they change teams (Fangraphs has had several articles on that, the most recent coming when Fowler got traded). UZR pegged Young at a -6 in right field last year (that's where he was mostly playing with the Rockies, despite not having the arm for it) and a +4 in left (mostly with the Mets), while the Fielding Bible had him at -4 and +3 (I don't remember the exact number, but his FB rating in left was negative for the season when he arrived here in June). He also put up strongly positive metrics in center in 2012. I would make the argument that left field is not where you really want to stick a guy with a .650 OPS, but I think the notion that his outfield glove was valueless is misleading -- especially when he replaced somebody who put up a -12 (12 runs is roughly three wins) in less than 500 innings in left.

As for second base, Murphy has put up a -24 (from the Fielding Bible) over two full seasons. If second is Young's natural position, he should be able to do at least that "well."

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: I make no claim otherwise.

Except I'm not counting no seven seasons.

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: 0.9 WAR, bbRef-wise, virtually all of it with baserunning/double-play avoidance. Batting- and glove-wise, he was still below-replacement-level. Prorated over a whole season, that would be 1.5 WAR; that hypothetical season would be only the second (out of 7) in his career during which he posted ANY net-positive value above replacement-level.

AND last year seemingly every Met added value with the baserunning. (6.4 for Murphy, 0.7 for Davis. ) Clearly the Mets had some sort of organizational focus there that worked out, which while doesn't negate Young's value there, but does mean that a lot of the value Young added would've be translated to the person who replaced him, supposing it was anyone but like Lucas Duda (and hell, maybe it can negate some deficiencies that have him sap almost all, or all depending how you measure, his offensive prowess?)

[metirish]

We may well have to live with Tejada at SS Alderson said at the winter meetings.

[Edgy MD]

I like Tom Goodwin as much as anybody, but I think it's highly speculative that Young's baserunning value is entirely or even mostly a result of an easily reproducable dose of organization coaching.

I don't get it. The case against Young is clear and not particularly weak. Why should we stretch so to augment it?

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I like Tom Goodwin as much as anybody, but I think it's highly speculative that Young's baserunning value is entirely or even mostly a result of an easily reproducable dose of organization coaching. I don't get it. The case against Young is clear and not particularly weak. Why should we stretch so to augment it.

because people suggest Young should be a regular player, therefore there's never enough evidence to put forth.

The Mets WERE a much better baserunning team as a whole. Perhaps this is totally random fluctuation and luck, but I doubt it's ALL luck. And it's probably not just Goodwin, Teufel making the right calls at third base on send/stay adds value too.

Besides, I'm not saying most of his value was reproducible via coaching, but even some makes an already limited usefulness player into one slightly less useful.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: because people suggest Young should be a regular player,

I'm not sure which people you're speaking of, but the case for Young as a regular player begins and ends with "unless there's somebody better available.

Ceetar wrote: therefore there's never enough evidence to put forth.

What about bad evidence? Should manipulated, cherry-picked and distorted evidence be welcome because he's just such a disaster that the end of his tenure justifies it all?

Ceetar wrote: The Mets WERE a much better baserunning team as a whole.

Wonderful.

Ceetar wrote: Perhaps this is totally random fluctuation and luck, but I doubt it's ALL luck.

I'm not sure why you're capitalizing that "ALL." It suggests a nonexistent argument that people who disagree with you are making. Nobody, of course is making.

Ceetar wrote: And it's probably not just Goodwin, Teufel making the right calls at third base on send/stay adds value too.

And probably the players too.

Ceetar wrote: Besides, I'm not saying most of his value was reproducible via coaching...

"Clearly the Mets had some sort of organizational focus there that worked out, which while doesn't negate Young's value there, but does mean that a lot of the value Young added would've be translated to the person who replaced him, supposing it was anyone but like Lucas Duda (and hell, maybe it can negate some deficiencies that have him sap almost all, or all depending how you measure, his offensive prowess?)"

As maddening as that sentence is to parse, it really really really seems to say something like this.

Ceetar wrote: ...but even some makes an already limited usefulness player into one slightly less useful.

Yes, coaching makes people better. On this we agree. But of all the Mets, only one won the National League stolen base championship.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: because people suggest Young should be a regular player,

I'm not sure which people you're speaking of, but the case for Young as a regular player begins and ends with "unless there's somebody better available."

Ceetar wrote: therefore there's never enough evidence to put forth.

What about bad evidence? Should manipulated, cherry-picked and distorted evidence be welcome because he's just such a disaster that the end of his tenure justifies it all?

Ceetar wrote: The Mets WERE a much better baserunning team as a whole.

Wonderful.

Ceetar wrote: Perhaps this is totally random fluctuation and luck, but I doubt it's ALL luck.

I'm not sure why you're capitalizing that "ALL." It suggests a nonexistent argument that people who disagree with you are loudly making. Nobody, of course, is claiming this at all.

Ceetar wrote: And it's probably not just Goodwin, Teufel making the right calls at third base on send/stay adds value too.

And probably the players too.

Ceetar wrote: Besides, I'm not saying most of his value was reproducible via coaching...

Ceetar: "Clearly the Mets had some sort of organizational focus there that worked out, which while doesn't negate Young's value there, but does mean that a lot of the value Young added would've be translated to the person who replaced him, supposing it was anyone but like Lucas Duda (and hell, maybe it can negate some deficiencies that have him sap almost all, or all depending how you measure, his offensive prowess?)"

As maddening as that sentence is to parse, it really really really seems to say something like this.

Ceetar wrote: ...but even some makes an already limited usefulness player into one slightly less useful.

Yes, coaching makes people better. On this we agree. But of all the Mets, all exposed to the same coaches, and of all the other talented players in the league with many coaches and organizational philosophies good and bad, only one won the National League stolen base championship.

[Ceetar]

"...but even some makes an already limited usefulness player into one slightly less useful."

correct. This is based on data. The Mets as a whole were better at baserunning. This is not distorted or manipulated evidence. It's truth.

There ARE people suggesting Young should play second base. This threads mere existence suggests it. I am merely pointing out that there is evidence pointing to a an organizational aim on baserunning that boosted the value of that skill for all Mets players, and Young, as the fastest, benefited the most from it and as such, his value is artificially high.

I mean, isn't this thread primarily to talk about Eric Young's value? isn't that what I'm doing?

[Edgy MD]

ceetar wrote: ...but even some makes an already limited usefulness player into one slightly less useful." correct. This is based on data. The Mets as a whole were better at baserunning.

Are you really quoting yourself for the purpose of agreeing with yourself?

ceetar wrote: There ARE people suggesting Young should play second base. This threads mere existence suggests it.

Who in this thread has suggested it?

ceetar wrote: I mean, isn't this thread primarily to talk about Eric Young's value? isn't that what I'm doing?

It seems to be clearly presented to inquire about whether he can play shortstop.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: ceetar wrote: ...but even some makes an already limited usefulness player into one slightly less useful." correct. This is based on data. The Mets as a whole were better at baserunning. Are you really quoting yourself for the purpose of agreeing with yourself? ceetar wrote: There ARE people suggesting Young should play second base. This threads mere existence suggests it. Who in this thread has suggested it? ceetar wrote: I mean, isn't this thread primarily to talk about Eric Young's value? isn't that what I'm doing? It seems to be clearly presented to inquire about whether he can play shortstop.

yes.

Am I only allowed to talk about opinions in this thread? small sample there..

Working on a false assumption.

[Edgy MD]

I don't understand that post, sir.

(I strive for clarity and enlightenment, only to find out I don't understand anything at all.)