Article: Offseason Primer: Who Needs a First Baseman Anyways?

[Ben Noble]

 

This is classic Twins/Terry Ryan/Cheapskate thinking. DH is a position that should hit well and for power. Not a place to put a guy that is decent at everything, but not particularly good at anything. When is the last time to Twin have employed a good DH? Get a bat. One that hits for power and gets on base. Or move Sano over there and be done with him in the field. 

 

I get what you're saying, but I think signing a bat-only DH is cheapskate thinking. Can't speak for others, but I want a player that can hit for power and gets on base AND can play the field. That player will not come cheap.

[TheLeviathan]

 

it's clearly, at least to me, implied that if they can't play the position, then they won't. NO ONE is saying sign 9 DH types that can't field. That's not flexibility. 

 

Where I start to doubt that is where someone suggests Rosario playing 3B is equivalent to Polanco playing SS.  Saying one is just as doable as the other blurs the line a lot IMO.  Or to imply that the risk of defensive liabilities are the same, doesn't sit well with me.

 

It shows very little discretion/care between what kind of skill sets are vital at each position, player experience there, etc.  

 

Flexibility, to me, is a tool you use to enhance your roster.  But it's not going to be a fit for many players, maybe even most.  RB talks a lot about every guy having multiple gloves and reps at multiple positions.  I just don't see how you envision a scenario like that in which you aren't advocating players at positions they aren't good at.  And then name-dropping Polanco as a below average shortstop as being the same thing as tossing Rosario at third....makes me think my gut reaction is right.  What he is asserting IS ok with players ill equipped to man the position.

[Riverbrian]

 

RB talks a lot about every guy having multiple gloves and reps at multiple positions.  

 

"Every"? Earlier I quoted myself to you to specifically illustrate that I don't mean "every" guy.

 

I still get "every".? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

"Every"? Earlier I quoted myself to you to specifically illustrate that I don't mean "every" guy.

 

I still get "every".? 

 

I'll have to dig through your posts, but I feel like I've read that sort of terminology.

 

So here's what I've heard you say: "Prepare for every eventuality"  What does that mean, if not rotating a lot of players to alternate positions?

Edited October 29, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[nicksaviking]

 

FWIW, Rosario’s fielding percentage at 2b isn’t much worse than it is as an OFer in the minors. .975 vs .969. Thing is, OFers usually have a far higher pct than middle infielders.

Like I said, FWIW.

 

Well Rosario would have a difficult time missing the cut off man when he is the cut off man.

 

I joke, but I'd have no problem seeing if Rosario can play another position. I think far more players are capable of playing new positions, these are typically world class athletes after all. Hitting a 92 MPH slider should be much more difficult than backhanding a grounder. In most cases I'd think it would just take commitment to improve and expand their skill sets.

 

I'd think the biggest obstacle is getting the players to want to learn a new position; it would have to be the trendy and profitable thing to do. I think as a sport we are at that point though, I think most players would buy into it. 

 

I was thinking about this the other day, wondering if there are a certain type of players who'd be offended by asking them to move positions. I kind of had a mental bet with myself that it would be the same stubborn players who continue to hit into the shift and won't alter their approach at the plate that would be hardest to convince to pick up a 2nd glove.

[Riverbrian]

 

I'll have to dig through your posts, but I feel like I've read that sort of terminology.

 

So here's what I've heard you say: "Prepare for every eventuality"  What does that mean, if not rotating a lot of players to alternate positions?

 

It's not that complicated. It means prepare for success and prepare for failure. 

 

If the Twins sign Bryce Harper, Jones, Cutch or Pollock. If Max Kepler and Byron Buxton find it and become what they could be and Eddie plays like he played this year... and we got 4 outfielders playing good baseball. Move one to another position to find playing time. That's preparing for success. 

 

If the Twins sign Bryce Harper, Jones, Cutch or Pollock. If Max Kepler and Byron Buxton find it and become what they could be and Eddie plays like he played this year AND Tyler Austin who is out of options but given the 1st base job is hitting .156 in May... Move one of the 4 outfielders to 1B and that's preparing for failure. Or if Austin gets hurts for a month... move one of the 4 outfielders to 1B and that's preparing for failure. 

 

If the Twins sign Bryce Harper... Tyler Austin is doing fine but Buxton is still swinging at outside sliders and hitting .156. We got an Outfielder to try and Buxton does sink us because all the eggs are in the Buxton basket. That's preparing for failure. 

 

If Rosario is capable of playing a decent 3B... Now we got options in case Sano snaps the titanium rod in his leg but you got to plan for it by signing that 4th outfielder like Adam Jones or whoever.  

 

The way the Twins have done it for years... Is not sign Bryce Harper or Adam Jones because they have Rosario, Buxton and Kepler and they would call it good, set the roster and hope that Rosario, Buxton and Kepler perform and stay healthy. If they die... we die... and my summer is ruined. When one gets hurt we are sifting through the scrap heap for the Motters of the world to play meaningful innings. Just sign Adam Jones and let the players compete with each other and give me a manager like Maddon or Roberts who can figure it out.    

 

You become bullet proof by over staffing and this is how the Twins can follow the Brewers model and you can't over staff unless you have alternative places for players to play in case we have multiple players performing at the same position... Prepare for Success.

 

No one can predict who is going to struggle and who is going to get hurt and where the need will be... Prepare for failure.

 

I don't ever want to see 25 man roster spots wasted by players the manager is reluctant to play and even more so... I don't ever want to see Logan Morrison hitting under .200 and not having to check the lineup card.   

 

This doesn't have to be a hard concept to understand and it doesn't mean that Byron Buxton has to play SS. Just look at the Cubs and Dodgers and watch them move the players around for match-ups, for health reasons, for hot and cold streaks. Kris Bryant in RF one day and 3B the next. Javier Baez playing 2B, 3B, SS. Ian Happ at 2B, 3B and OF. Zobrist wherever and whenever needed. This is what I've been doing and this is why I'm trying my damnedest to pass it along to everyone but I can't get past... "every" player.   

 

Has the Cubs defense suffered as a result? Has the Dodgers defense suffered as a result? I don't know, and I'd love for someone to take the conversation seriously enough to provide some defensive data but I can't get past people thinking that Vargas should learn to play CF to take the conversation seriously enough.  

 

I do know this... The Dodgers and Cubs are in the playoffs every year so it ain't hurting them too bad and the Dodgers just survived more injuries than perhaps any team in baseball this year.

 

And I do know this... Players move to new positions successfully when necessity demands it. I'm just openly questioning why we wait until the demand demands it. I've been sitting here all summer watching a couple of teams pull it off while the rest of the league hasn't figured it out. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

[Squirrel]

 

"Every"? Earlier I quoted myself to you to specifically illustrate that I don't mean "every" guy.

 

I still get "every".? 

I don't think you say 'every' ... but you get so excited about positional flexibility I think you sometimes go overboard to make a point and then confuse us all, until we remember it's Brian.

[Riverbrian]

 

I don't think you say 'every' ... but you get so excited about positional flexibility I think you sometimes go overboard to make a point and then confuse us all, until we remember it's Brian.

 

My Fault I suppose. 

 

I know Carrot Top has a hard time being taken seriously when he tries to discuss his brilliant ideas for solving the water crisis in California. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's not that complicated. It means prepare for success and prepare for failure. 

 

No one can predict who is going to struggle and who is going to get hurt and where the need will be... Prepare for failure.

 

I do know this... The Dodgers and Cubs are in the playoffs every year so it ain't hurting them too bad and the Dodgers just survived more injuries than perhaps any team in baseball this year. 

 

Well, there may be reasons beyond positional flexibility that are aiding the Dodgers and Cubs success.  Just saying.

 

As for the rest, I don't find "Prepare for Failure" to be particularly helpful as an answer.  You gave a lot of examples of shuffling outfielders.  That's fine, but that's the easy answer.  I don't think most people would find the view that you play your LF/RF/CF somewhat interchangeably as all that new or unusual.

 

Where I get....skeptical?....is when you criticized Milwaukee and Boston for not playing Shaw and Mookie at 2B during the season.  Which plays to this "prepare for failure" mantra and how the rubber meets the road.  You seem to imply that teams should knowingly play guys at inferior positions to get them experience in worst case scenarios, but you don't seem to see the problem with how far you extend that thinking.

 

I mean, should the Twins start Tyler Austin at catcher because he's the emergency guy just to get him reps there?  If Sano at SS is plan C....should we start him there 10 times a year?  On the off-chance we acquire a shortstop mid-season should we play Polanco in CF just in case?

 

That's where I struggle with some of your comments.  "Failure" can mean a lot of different things.  Playing Shaw at 2B in April when they didn't have a good backup 3B, just on the off-chance they made a July trade....seems like a bizarre way to approach things.   I don't think that's sound thinking at all.

[Riverbrian]

 

Well, there may be reasons beyond positional flexibility that are aiding the Dodgers and Cubs success.  Just saying.

 

As for the rest, I don't find "Prepare for Failure" to be particularly helpful as an answer.  You gave a lot of examples of shuffling outfielders.  That's fine, but that's the easy answer.  I don't think most people would find the view that you play your LF/RF/CF somewhat interchangeably as all that new or unusual.

 

Where I get....skeptical?....is when you criticized Milwaukee and Boston for not playing Shaw and Mookie at 2B during the season.  Which plays to this "prepare for failure" mantra and how the rubber meets the road.  You seem to imply that teams should knowingly play guys at inferior positions to get them experience in worst case scenarios, but you don't seem to see the problem with how far you extend that thinking.

 

I mean, should the Twins start Tyler Austin at catcher because he's the emergency guy just to get him reps there?  If Sano at SS is plan C....should we start him there 10 times a year?  On the off-chance we acquire a shortstop mid-season should we play Polanco in CF just in case?

 

That's where I struggle with some of your comments.  "Failure" can mean a lot of different things.  Playing Shaw at 2B in April when they didn't have a good backup 3B, just on the off-chance they made a July trade....seems like a bizarre way to approach things.   I don't think that's sound thinking at all.

 

It wasn't a criticism of not playing Shaw at 2B. It's another example of how the teams staffing their lineup to the hilt make moves that like that in the heat of the pennant race and how teams make these virgin moves despite being in the heat of a pennant race. 

 

Mookie... Honestly it never would have occurred to me... I wasn't paying a lot of attention to Boston but then I read that they were working him it out at 2B to see if it was a possibility and I saw the logic but then questioned the preparation so that was a criticism. They got Benetendi, Bradley, Betts and Martinez who can all play OF and somebody is going to have to sit in the national league city if they make the World Series... Of course... they didn't play Betts at 2B but thinking about it... If you envision yourself World Series possible and I assume that the Red Sox were built to consider themselves World Series Possible.... Yeah... They should have tried something during the year. I do think that makes more sense then to try and slam it together quickly on the biggest stage. It turned out alright though... they won. 

 

Drilling down the granular level like you are though... Overall... you are missing the larger point. Shaw got moved to accommodate Moustakas and did so in a pennant race. Kepler can play a little 1B to accommodate Cutch/Jones.  

 

Yeah... Let's play Austin at Catcher and Sano at SS and Polanco at CF. Keep trying to reduce me to the lowest possible level you can. 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

.  

 

Yeah... Let's play Austin at Catcher and Sano at SS and Polanco at CF. Keep trying to reduce me to the lowest possible level you can. 

 

Aren't the granular examples the ones that matter?  It's one thing to argue that guys can move around to accommodate acquisitions, it's another thing to suggest that Boston and Milwaukee should have played those guys at 2B earlier in the year.  

 

You said that several times, isn't that playing a guy at a noticeably inferior position on the off-chance something happens in the future?  I don't think that's sound thinking.  I'll cross that bridge when it comes, I'm not going to use prep for worst case scenarios drive my every day lineups.

 

So when you suggest things like that, it does seem like you're willing to choose things at the detriment of the team in the name of flexibility.

Edited October 30, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[Mike Sixel]

 

Aren't the granular examples the ones that matter?  It's one thing to argue that guys can move around to accommodate acquisitions, it's another thing to suggest that Boston and Milwaukee should have played those guys at 2B earlier in the year.  

 

You said that several times, isn't that playing a guy at a noticeably inferior position on the off-chance something happens in the future?  I don't think that's sound thinking.  I'll cross that bridge when it comes, I'm not going to use prep for worst case scenarios drive my every day lineups.

 

So when you suggest things like that, it does seem like you're willing to choose things at the detriment of the team in the name of flexibility.

 

I'd have liked to see Kepler at 1B more this year, to see if he can do it....to know what might be a good or bad idea for this next year....

 

I probably try Rosario at 3B once or twice, to see if he can do it, at least in spring training, if not a lost season. If I am the Sox, I think I try Betts at 2B during the year, since they were planning to WIN, and could use him at 2B in an NL park. But I would have tried it in the spring first.

 

Just as I'd play a backup more often in a lost season, to see what he has.....which I know is different, and still doesn't happen enough for my taste.

[TheLeviathan]

Trying some things out in ST is absolutely fine by me.

[Riverbrian]

Aren't the granular examples the ones that matter? It's one thing to argue that guys can move around to accommodate acquisitions, it's another thing to suggest that Boston and Milwaukee should have played those guys at 2B earlier in the year.

 

You said that several times, isn't that playing a guy at a noticeably inferior position on the off-chance something happens in the future? I don't think that's sound thinking. I'll cross that bridge when it comes, I'm not going to use prep for worst case scenarios drive my every day lineups.

 

So when you suggest things like that, it does seem like you're willing to choose things at the detriment of the team in the name of flexibility.

1. You did it again. I just stated that Shaw was an example of a team moving a player to another position in a very recent quote to you. I gave him his own paragraph to seperate him from My thoughts on Mookie Betts. I didn't suggest that Shaw should have played 2B earlier this year but you say "Boston and Milwaukee".

 

If Milwaukee can move a player in the heat of a pennant race... Why can't the Twins when we are not in a pennant race? That's my point about Shaw.

 

2. You are the one saying "Noticeably Inferior". Even worse than that, you are saying that I am saying "Noticeably Inferior" "Several Times". I'm not saying "Noticeably Inferior". I never have said "Noticeably Inferior" or anything that approaches the same meaning. If I've never said it... I certainly haven't said it several times but you are allowed to type that and get likes for doing so.

 

There is no difference between what you are doing here and the push polling political surveys that I'm getting on my telephone every day.

 

Don't do that again.

 

3. "So when you suggest things like that"

 

That is how you wrap up your point.

 

You are suggesting things like that!

[TheLeviathan]

The Red Sox could have been better prepared for this possibility by playing Betts at 2B on occasion during the year instead of coming in cold on the big stage. They had the opportunity to do it.

 

The Indians could have been better prepared for the addition of Josh Donaldon, if Ramirez played some 2B during the year and Kipnis played some CF instead of coming in cold in September.

 

Of course Kepler can and should play 1B on occasion in 2019. I believe Rosario could play some IF if needed. Doing so will provide our new manager more options to work in the 2019 World Series.

 

Prepare for Success and Prepare for Failure. Depth and Flexibility is how it's done.

 

 

You use your phrases at the end of this.  How is this not advocating the model of playing players at other positions, during the season, at positions they are not as good at, to prepare for off-chance/worst case scenarios/"failure"?

 

Of course I lumped Shaw into this with Milwaukee.  Why would your logic on his handling be any different than the examples here?  

[Riverbrian]

 

You use your phrases at the end of this.  How is this not advocating the model of playing players at other positions, during the season, at positions they are not as good at, to prepare for off-chance/worst case scenarios/"failure"?

 

Of course I lumped Shaw into this with Milwaukee.  Why would your logic on his handling be any different than the examples here?  

 

At the granular level.

 

The Red Sox had 4 quality outfielders and playoff expectations that would hopefully involve the World Series and playing without the DH in a National League Park. Playing the national league style game not only involves the loss of the DH but double switches are part of the strategy and that makes the ability to move a player to a different position necessary to be able to utilize all of your options. Instead of working out Betts on the eve of the World Series to see if Betts at 2B is possible... they could have given Betts some reps at 2B earlier when they were 100 games ahead in the standings. Instead of a crash course with all the chips on the line. It's not that difficult to understand. 

 

The Indians were also a team heading to the playoffs with the same goal of a world series and games to play in the national league if they achieve it with no DH and Double Switches to ponder. Jose Ramirez has already proven that he can play both 2B and 3B yet they kept him at 3B exclusively. Despite having Yandy Diaz performing fairly well plus Lonnie Chisenhall with 3B experience and Jason Kipnis spending significant time on the DL. I'm not saying that the Indians knew they were going to acquire Josh Donaldson but I am saying that Joe Maddon would have played Ramirez at both positions throughout the year. 

 

The Brewers... I did not say... I would have played Travis Shaw at 2B earlier but in hindsight... Yeah... Why not... All reports are that he performed fine at the position and if he has the ability to play the position decently which was only discovered because the team acquired Moustakas... It could have been considered earlier. That flexibility is valuable for matchups, hot and cold streaks and injuries that you can't plan for. Counsell played Jesus Aguilar at 3B for 5 games because he was stuffed to the rafters at 1B when Thames was healthy. 

 

That's the granular level that you are trying to trip me up with. But all in all... you are missing the larger point. 

 

My logic is different because I've been looking at this all summer from all kinds of different angles. 

 

Here's the larger point: If teams can make switches like these on the fly during the heat of a pennant chase... Why can't the Twins do the same in the cold of not being in it. Why do the Dodgers do it all year long? Why do the Cubs? 

 

You claim the players being switched are not good at the position. Were they? Grab your telescope and take a look at the sky. Don't just throw Galileo in prison for heresy. The Earth is revolving around the sun at Wrigley Field and Dodger Stadium.  

 

I'll make it simple... Go get 13 Pitchers who can pitch... 12 Position players who can play. Once a team does that... they will have no choice but to adopt position flexibility to accommodate. 

 

 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

 

I see flexibility as an asset to be sought, not a strategy to force.  

 

On this we agree 100%

 

But here's something else for you to ponder. 

 

When I mention Betts getting some reps prior. Ramirez playing 2B and 3B... Kepler at 1B. 

 

Isn't that an attempt to develop the asset to be sought?

 

Isn't waiting until Donaldson and Moustakas to be acquired the pushing of the domino or the crash coursing of Mookie Betts the eve of the world series... the very definition of implementing the strategy by force? 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

That's the granular level that you are trying to trip me up with. But all in all... you are missing the larger point. 

 

I'm not trying to trip you up.  I just read you taking a stance I can agree with (more flexibility) and taking it a step too far where it starts to butt heads with another item I value (defensive excellence).  The idea of sticking outfielders at 3B or 2B very much makes me worry about quality of defensive play.

 

Consider the value a great SS has over even an average one.  Two high-end professional athletes, trained and experienced at the same position, but the inferior defender can have serious consequences for your team.  Why wouldn't a left-fielder, stuck at 2B, also cause significant problems?  Even in small samples?  That's where you lose me.  I don't want to experiment, in real games, to prepare for low probability scenarios.

 

If I want to create flexibility, I'm using ST or Fall League for that.

Edited October 30, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[Riverbrian]

I'm not trying to trip you up. I just read you taking a stance I can agree with (more flexibility) and taking it a step too far where it starts to butt heads with another item I value (defensive excellence). The idea of sticking outfielders at 3B or 2B very much makes me worry about quality of defensive play.

 

 

I believe this is where we are unnecessarily talking past one another.

 

I also agree 100% with your last sentence of this paragraph. The idea of sticking outfielders at 3B or 2B also makes me worry. I also believe decent defense is critical to preventing the crooked number and the crooked number creates losses.

 

When I suggest Rosario for infield play... It's a "For Example to illustrate the benefit of the concept" but I have no idea if Rosario can play infield adequately enough and that is important. The benefit comes when he can actually do it. He doesn't have to be Nolan Arenado but he can't Bill Buckner on a loop either. I have said multiple times that I don't know if he can do it or not but it's not important to the discussion because he is just being used as a door way to the outer world of what I think is an important conversation.

 

However... weather Rosario can or can't doesn't kill the dream or the possibility, you just consider the next possibility. It is still something to strive for and not something to be forced. In my opinion the Twins have never striven for it and the only examples that I can think of... were forced.

 

Take Sano for example. Sano to RF was forced because we signed Park and loved Plouffe. I fully admit I was for the Sano in RF experiement because of my strong belief in the value of flexibility. However, It didn't take long for me to change my mind after watching him play RF and I wanted that particular genie stuffed back in the bottle... but that had more to do with how wrong the choice of Sano to RF was and not the idea of it.

 

To bring all of this full circle... After watching Sano become our shining example of moving a player on the fly... I begin to seriously question just how bad we are at making these assessments... and once I'm at the point of seriously questioning just how bad we are at making these assessments... It's easier for me to believe that they may be wrong about Rosario... and just maybe he can play some infield. I'm gonna need to see it for myself now... and that’s when I start talking about whatever the hell they were doing with Astundillo because I could see for myself that he can play the catcher position.

 

All in All... We agree... It's something to strive for and not something to be forced but I am obviously at the point where I feel... It has to be striven for and it has to start right now with the construction of the 2019 roster because I can't tolerate another year of suffering the incredibly bad play from our every day starters without an alternative to turn to.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm very skeptical about how many players could do this well. I appreciate trying this in the minors or ST, but once the player is in the majors I am far more skeptical of experimenting.