Spec seems incapable of opening his mouth except to provide Zen-like koan for meditation:  

 +++++ Would Wilson's defense cause them to consider Branyan at third in 2010 (I recall when Beltre went down they said "we don't want to move him in the middle of the season when he's so hot at the plate" or something to that effect; that is, they may view it differently if he had the whole offseason to prepare).

I raise this because of the comment the brass made to USSM that they love Tui but aren't convinced he's an MLB 3b.

Branyan at third opens up both 1b and DH for any FA, trade and/or prospects you'd want to slide in there.

I realize Branyan ain't great on defense, but he has played third more often than not.  Just how bad is he if paired with a guy like Wilson?  -- SPEC ++++

........................

From a standpoint of the pitchers' states of mind, you've got a point.

The John Hart Indians had a lot of butchers on the field, but they had little O at SS, sort of gluing the whole defense.

In 1995, for example, the Indians had Thome at 3B (!), Carlos Baerga at 2B and Sorrento at 1B.  Whatever the stats would say -- and I haven't looked it up -- those guys were all very questionable defenders.

But little O was so slick, and so confident, at the SS position that the pitchers were fine with giving up ground balls.   The 1995 Indians of course won 100 games in a 144-game season, with a 122 ERA+.

This is a model for a team exploiting a great SS to put bats on the infield. 

.................

.................

In terms of runs gained and lost, here's one situation where I'd be inclined to be very mathematical about the + and - of Branyan at 3B (and Carp at 1B) compared to Branyan 1B and a hole at third.

You lose, I dunno, pencil in -10, -15 with the mitt, if you play Branyan at third (compared to an average 3B, not compared to the glorious defender Beltre).   But Branyan's bat gains you a whale of a lot more than +10 runs compared to a Jack Hannahan at third.

Anyway, look at all your 3B / 1B pairs and add it up.  I'd allow myself to be bullied by the math on this one (though not necessarily by UZR's, or by a blogger's interpretation of what the defensive cost is).

And you bear in mind that the overall decision is not "captured" by that math.  Other positions, other possibilities, are bumped in domino effect by your decision to play Branyan at 3B or 1B.

.................

.................

Look at it this way.  If you DID want to make a big impact with a bat-first, no-glove player, where would you do it?  3B is a great place -- LF and 1B already are bat-first positions; CF you need a glove; SS you'd prefer a bat-first player ... 3B is a place where you might have the luxury of choosing a Jim Thome.

My boyhood idols, the 1970-77 Cincinnati Reds, became overwhelming precisely when they removed a glove-first 3B (Denis Menke) and replaced him with the older Pete Rose at third.   Their lineup just became packed with bats.  Dave Concepcion played SS for the Big Red Machine and played the little O role -- Concepcion and Geronimo (short and CF) were the glove guys.

Earl Weaver also had the tendency to find a Belanger for SS, a Blair for CF, and then to put extreme bat-first players onto the field around them.

....................

No question that with Gutierrez in CF, and Wilson at SS, the Mariners can now put bats wherever they want.

Maybe the defensive contortions were just band-aids, until Capt Jack could get the middle of the diamond together on defense.  Now THAT would be officer thinking.  :- )

Wilson with a Gold Glove at SS, Russ Branyan with 40 homers at 3B, that is a concept that a lot of teams have won 100 games with.

Cheers,

Dr D