ShortStop 2014

[Guest Mixtapewormhole]

Hey thanks! Quasi-new guy, actually. Anything I miss the past, uh, 8 years?

[Edgy MD]

Hey, yeah, welcome back, Mister Mxyzptlk.

[Guest themetfairy]

Welcome back OO!

[Ceetar]

Mixtapewormhole wrote: Hey thanks! Quasi-new guy, actually. Anything I miss the past, uh, 8 years?

The Mets built a cool new stadium.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Ceetar wrote: Mixtapewormhole wrote: Hey thanks! Quasi-new guy, actually. Anything I miss the past, uh, 8 years? The Mets built a cool new stadium.

which sucks

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: Mixtapewormhole wrote: Hey thanks! Quasi-new guy, actually. Anything I miss the past, uh, 8 years? The Mets built a cool new stadium. which sucks

The Mets built a cool new stadium that I love. Your mileage may vary. The pretzels are rarely burnt and I haven't had to wade through puddles to get to my seat in ages.

[MFS62]

Welcome back.
Later

[ashie62]

Have not heard the crowd roar once at Citifield like it did at Shea almost every game....

[Lefty Specialist]

Tough to get a roar going for unburnt pretzels.

[Zvon]

Good to see you back O_O.

[Theoldmole]

The rap on Flores isn't that he's prone to making a lot of stupid plays, it's that he doesn't have the range for shortstop. So what does that mean? That he fails to get to one hit per game that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a lot. That he fails to get to one hit every three games that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a trade-off you might make for a guy who hits forty points higher than the guy with range.

[Ceetar]

TheOldMole wrote: The rap on Flores isn't that he's prone to making a lot of stupid plays, it's that he doesn't have the range for shortstop. So what does that mean? That he fails to get to one hit per game that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a lot. That he fails to get to one hit every three games that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a trade-off you might make for a guy who hits forty points higher than the guy with range.

Well, if he's Duda bad at a more valuable position..

Duda was 18% better than average with the bat and had ALL of that value erased via defense.

you don't typically look for 18% better than average at SS, but it's also be unreasonable to expect that of a rookie.

But if Tejada was playing LF, would you advocate they play Duda there instead? Because that's a fair parallel to the worry about Flores at short.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Trade will still happen! Just wait!

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Trade will still happen! Just wait!

Drew signing will still happen! no?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

No.

I mean, I don't think so.

[ashie62]

The Tigers prefer 37 year old Alex Gonzalez over Drew...

[Ceetar]

Ashie62 wrote: The Tigers prefer 37 year old Alex Gonzalez over Drew...

and even traded someone for him.

Drew's demands just have to be ridiculous.

[Edgy MD]

TheOldMole wrote: The rap on Flores isn't that he's prone to making a lot of stupid plays, it's that he doesn't have the range for shortstop. So what does that mean? That he fails to get to one hit per game that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a lot. That he fails to get to one hit every three games that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a trade-off you might make for a guy who hits forty points higher than the guy with range.

This is a simple but I think a very illuminating framing of the issue, even as it ignores important stuff like extra base power and walks.

Shortstops are often singles hitters, but overlooked is that fact that, as important as they are on defense, they are even more typically singles defenders. I would estimate that 19 out of 20 balls that a shortstop could possibly make a play on but fails to are singles --- the lone exception being the popup down the leftfield line that falls for a double if the shortstop cannot race in between the third baseman and the leftfielder.

The importance of outfield defense has long (and I think unjustly) been downplayed relative to infield defense. The first data-intestive list I saw of the top defensive season from all players included just one season by an outfielder (Dave Parker, in the glory of his arm).

But I think what had previously been under-appreciated is that while the outfielder might get fewer overall chances and fewer marginal chances, his failures lead to doubles and triples. I think the appreciation for this fact is growing, and certainly seems to be growing in Metsylvania, as the team went out and custom built their outfield defense this offseason, but seem willing to downgrade at first (potentially from Davis to Duda), potentially downgrade at short (potentially from Tejada to some combination that may include Flores), and stay fair to middling at second with Murph.

Gutsy and fascinating.

[Benjamin Grimm]

He's probably hung up on that $14.1 million figure.

[Vic Sage]

TheOldMole wrote: The rap on Flores isn't that he's prone to making a lot of stupid plays, it's that he doesn't have the range for shortstop. So what does that mean? That he fails to get to one hit per game that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a lot. That he fails to get to one hit every three games that a shortstop with greater range would get to? That's a trade-off you might make for a guy who hits forty points higher than the guy with range.

As Edgy also said, this i think is the crux of the matter. If, in fact, Flores' defensive problems are primarily about range (and that's how its been reported), then it comes down to how many more hits (mostly singles) he gives up as a result of his limited range compared to how many more hits and walks he gets (including more XBH) than the other options the Mets have at SS, or even what the average SS may get.

I'm OK with Flores starting the season at AAA to work on his SS skills, but if he continues his growth as a hitter and can limit his defensive shortcomings to be primarily about range (able to make all the right plays on the balls he can get to), then i'd be happy to try and make him work as our SS, because i have absolutely no interest in watching Tejada play anymore.

[Edgy MD]

Staffing the shortstop position for the final inning of today's game --- Eric Young, Jr.

Centerfield, please step forward and claim your prize.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Well, it stands to reason, no? Any time you can find at-bats for a guy who can get on, like, thirty percent of the time, well, you've got to give him those at-bats.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm beginning to think this whole Spring Training Blockbuster might not actually happen.

[MFS62]

Still time.
They'll be coming back from playing the Blue Jays in Montreal, and they'll bring Jose Reyes back with them.
They have to leave Farnsworth, because the government won't allow him back into the country.
Uh, I have to check my meds.

Later

[Vic Sage]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Well, it stands to reason, no? Any time you can find at-bats for a guy who can get on, like, thirty percent of the time, well, you've got to give him those at-bats.

well, its not quite that simple now, is it? I'm as SABR-philic as the next guy, but it seems to me a guy that gets on 30% of the time, but then can put himself quickly and consistently in scoring position (because he, you know, leads the league in SBs, and does so at a high rate), may be better option than a guy who gets on 35% of the time and then stands there on 1b, requiring more than one hit to score (unless its a HR, which this team hasn't, and isn't going to, hit that many of). Yes, OB% is important, probably the MOST important, offensive indicator, but it isn't the ONLY indicator, and shouldn't be considered in isolation.

[Edgy MD]

Alshmo, in his career, Young has gotten on 32.5% of the time, which isn't great, but isn't 30% either.

[Ceetar]

Vic Sage wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Well, it stands to reason, no? Any time you can find at-bats for a guy who can get on, like, thirty percent of the time, well, you've got to give him those at-bats. well, its not quite that simple now, is it? I'm as SABR-philic as the next guy, but it seems to me a guy that gets on 30% of the time, but then can put himself quickly and consistently in scoring position (because he, you know, leads the league in SBs, and does so at a high rate), may be better option than a guy who gets on 35% of the time and then stands there on 1b, requiring more than one hit to score (unless its a HR, which this team hasn't, and isn't going to, hit that many of). Yes, OB% is important, probably the MOST important, offensive indicator, but it isn't the ONLY indicator, and shouldn't be considered in isolation.

Well, if you wanted to pretend Young's net SB were an extra base, that'd bump him up to a .412 SLG with the Mets, which would be pretty good, but isn't quite the same because the SB doesn't actually drive anyone in the way a double does. It also seems to forget that Juan Lagares is not slow. He hasn't had the success rate in the minors that you'd want, but last year everyone on the Mets stole well. Daniel Murphy had a better SB% than Young Jr.

But really this decision has nothing to do with Young. Can Lagares hit a little more and maybe add value via baserunning too? If so, he's the slam dunk choice. And just that he has the potential to do so is enough. They'll work in EYJr in the beginning, but if Juan proves capable, you'll see him get less and less time (unless of course Chris falters)

[Vic Sage]

wow, way to respond to an argument that was not being made here.

EY was given some time at SS. The move was criticized because of EY's poor OB% not making him worth investing ABs in even, presumably, at a position where we are in dire need of options. I objected, saying you can't just look at OB% to determine his value.

And you start talking about EY's SLG%, and why Lagares's potential makes him a better OF option, and that Murphy's SB% is better than EY.

Nonsequitor fruitbasket obama whatthefuck?

Yes, we all know you have a hard-on about an EY. His existence perturbs you somehow. Consider your agenda advanced.

Can we return now to the subject of EY getting a surprising opportunity at SS, and why OB% may not tell the whole picture of his (or any player's) value?

[Ceetar]

Vic Sage wrote: Can we return now to the subject of EY getting a surprising opportunity at SS, and why OB% may not tell the whole picture of his (or any player's) value?

If you want. my point is actually relevant to something the Mets might do though. Figured I'd plug in the numbers while I was thinking about it.

I have nothing to say about Eric Young at SS. It's almost baseball season, and that's not something that's going to happen.

[Vic Sage]

If Collins was willing to give Justin Turner innings at SS (18g, 115inn last year), who is no more a SS than i am, why wouldn't he give it to EY, an athletic 2bman, if he needs to? And why shouldn't he see what that looks like before heading north?