Seattle Sports Insider

Bat-First Shortstops

Posted by

3/12/10

Remember what we do here. This is baseball chat, not Mahogany Row. :- ) You an' me don't decide what's best for the local ballclub.

Q: Supposing, just covering all contingencies, that it became apparent that Matt Tuiasosopo were an AL cleanup hitter, right now? Then what?

A from KingCorran: Then Jack Wilson ends up on the bench in short order, and trading away Mr. Triunfel no longer causes ANYONE concern. :P

R/X: If Matt Tuiasosopo could play a below-average shortstop, let's say -10 or -12 runs below the median in the AL, then a .270/.360/.500 bat would give us a whale of a club-controls player. You'd have a Miguel Tejada profile at SS.

(Or, suppose that Tui will shortly be a + bat and - glove at SS ... that he is such a player in development. That amounts to the same thing. You're developing a 2- or 3-wins SS who will be paid peanuts.)

American League bat-first SS's in recent years include Tejada, Derek Jeter, Nomar Garciaparra (a few years earlier), Carlos Guillen, Michael Young, and Jhonny Peralta. All of those guys could have been reasonably pegged at -10 or -15 runs below the glove-first SS's.

But, of course, even after you dock Derek Jeter -15 runs for his glove ... that just lowers him from +55 above replacement "down" to +40 runs above RLP.

Granted, these guys often move off SS once they're 30. But it's not like the Tigers and Rangers didn't play full seasons with Guillen and Young at SS.

Supposing you had a young player who hit .300/.380/.480, but who was a -10 runs shortstop. Would you play him? That's Derek Jeter. Can you win with Derek Jeter? The pitchers don't mind him so much when he scores the winning run for them...

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

Thing is, I don't think the Mariners would play a .550 SLG guy at SS if the player were -10, -15 runs on defense. I think he'd move the guy somewhere else. The $64,000 question is, suppose a $425,000 player is an excellent hitter but weak defender at a given position? Are we going with overall contribution, or putting stylistic paradigms first?

Jack Wilson was just extended. He's a given at SS. But he misses a lot of games, and for the games he misses, the M's are staring squarely at a tough decision here: do you want 60 games of Matt Tuiasosopo at SS, if he hits a ton but is bottom-third defensively?

I sure do. If you've got a + bat and a - glove and the player's average ... "average" is pretty good for a benchie, now isn't it.

The M's want D at short. That's their prerogative. Even the substitute role won't be decided until April 6, no matter how Tui hits. But if Josh Wilson is the choice because of paradigm paralysis, SSI is going to rain crumpled paper cups on the field :- )

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

Which puts us back where we started. Zduriencik has jammed the roster with dynamic players, all throwing elbows at each other for playing time.

How, for example, do you roster both Matt Tuiasosopo and Mike Sweeney, if they both hit .500 this spring? Nice problem to have.

The question remains. Sometimes a player shows you, in spring training, that he's real good. Supposing Matt Tuiasosopo shows that he's an ML star being born? What do you do about it?

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

Smoothest thing is to deal Lopez, I guess. But Tui ain't playing much third.

Comments

ST results hitting-wise can

ST results hitting-wise can be incredibly misleading.
That said, I'd support Tui over Josh Wilson if Hannahan goes down although I prefer Tui having a little more time in AAA.
Tui as the supersub infielder that can back up all positions and get regular PT is absolutely okay for me. It give you a TON of options day-to-day and kills the need for a backup infielder.
Jack Wilson needs rest or the offense is struggling? Tui goes in at SS.
Figgins can get extra rest for his hammies against tough lefties (hes better vs righties).
Ackley can get subbed vs a tough LH pitcher as well.
Tui could even sub for the 1B.

In the abstract, sure

The fact that some hitter or other bats .450 might mean nothing, especially if it's a BABIP thing.
As y'know, if Aroldis Chapman is throwing a 0+ ERA and clocking 102 mph, it's the skeeeeels on display...
Thing about Tui is the skills shown.
..................
Right, the M's are a SS-decision away from having a gorgeous 400-AB fifth infielder ... gotta love him in that role....

In ROTO I find that hitting

In ROTO I find that hitting results tend to mean next to nothing in ST, but oftentimes pitchers break out.
I think its due to the fact that most pitchers are usually working on things.

10th man

I agree. I think the short-term solution for Tui - if he keeps the bat in play - is super-sub, 500AB in a McLemore-esque scenario. He gets 100 AB at 3rd, 150 or so at SS, 100 at 2B, 100+ at 1B, and pinch-hits/LFs his way to another 50 at-bats. Gotta love the flexibility of a 10th regular. :)

It's not an unreasonable argument

to say that they already MADE their SS-decision which ends up giving them said 400-AB fifth infielder. You know, their decision to sign Jack Wilson long-term with his injury history/brittleness factor.

Tui

I've already said that I think Tui is just about a lock. Beyond that....I think he's going to be a regualr or near regular 3B this year. You can't keep him off the field.

Pos - Neg - Neutral

My thoughts. Given my bias that nobody on the planet can accurately judge defensive runs allowed -- I don't buy into the mathematical judgement here. (He's +30 offense - 10 defense equals +20 runs).
What I believe is that the club is perfectly willing to have defensively ADEQUATE players -- but is unwilling to have defensive liabilities.
I have already posted my thought that the club is experimenting with Tui at short for the very purpose of filling the Grand Canyon gap on the farm in regards to MI backups. (Throw Ackley into that mindset, too).
I don't believe for one second that they are trivially experimenting with players defensive positions if their mindset is "must be gold glove". The idea, (from my view), would be utterly ridiculous. Trying Ackley at second, trying Tui at short - IMO - is a CLEAR indication that the club isn't even remotely as myopic about defense as the current blog-o-think seems to believe.
Defense was the focus in 2009 because it was the ONLY thing Jack could get on the cheap. And where he could get non-defensive talent on the cheap, (Sweeney, Branyan, Griffey), the club swept in and picked it up.
Methinks there's a major astigmatism with the public view of Jack and defense - assuming "what he got" is "what he wants" - instead of "what he got was what he could afford to get".
That said - I think calling Jack Wilson "an extension" bends the reality a bit. Mostly, they diced his salary into two seasons, to reduce the payroll load for this one.
My thought is that Tui gets to play SS in Tacoma this season, and if he proves to be "competent", his bat could easily supplant Wilson by 2011. (Wilson's injury history obviously potentially speeding up that time-table).
The key point here is that in order to get ALL guys to buy into defensive stewardship, you can *NEVER* simply look the other way defensively. If you run the +20/-10 idea - and implement it -- I think the side-effect, is you risk getting -50 at the other 8 positions, because you've become a hypocrit. Anyone who has ever worked in corporate world should know that perceived favoritism can utterly destroy office morale.
I tell you though -- I REALLY like the idea of Ackley at second and Tui at short from 2011 to 2021. And if you get the together THIS YEAR in AAA, you set up the possibility of building a Hall of Fame DP combo as the base for a dynasty. But - you rush that process, get monofocused on winning 2 extra game (maybe) during 2010, lots of landmines. It's WAY easier for a player to work on learning a new position, (and fighting the fear of embarassment), in AAA rather than telling them to do so - AS ROOKIES - in the majors.

Beg to differ... a bit : )

I don't think the Blogoshpere's disposition on the defensive emphasis of this organization is out of whack.
Everything this club has done and said emphasizes defense. The players they've targeted, traded for, given up the most to get, have been defense-first guys. When they talk about their players, they emphasize defense over, and over, and over.
Will they sign Branyan as a stopgap? Sure. Give 'em a little more time, they'll go get Kotchman and drop Branyan like a hot potato. Will they sign Griffey again? Sure, but they told him to leave his outfield glove at home. Sweeney, he was a DH mostly last year, if he makes the club he'll be riding the pine too. DH doesn't have a big defensive impact. ; )
I think the blogosphere realizes that Z is the guy who drafted Prince Fielder. Also the guy who had a 6-for-1 to bring in A-Gone. The same guy who said the one thing the M's are missing right now is 'an aircraft carrier in the middle of the lineup'. Z appreciates big bats. I think most people realize that.
But the org has made it extremely clear. They WILL NOT make a move if they think it means they take a step back defensively. They've said exactly that. And they've shown they will take an abysmal bat and put it at short if it means getting an elite defense-man there.
I don't think their strategy of targeting defensive players was because that was all they could afford. The money was part of it; but I think even if they had unlimited funds, they would have targeted defensive guys because I think that's the way they want to build the club.

Different angle

There is a different angle to consider here. Namely, the M's have made Jack Wilson the IF captain. If he goes down, who is calling the shots? 3B is kind of out because no one is going to mistake Lopez for leadership material, let alone the cerebral type you want for that role. 2B is even more of a stretch than SS for that role. That leaves the club to captain the IF from the bench or lay it on the backup SS. If it's going to be the backup SS, he better be a guy that oozes leadership skills out of his pores or there are going to be problems. I'm sure Josh Wilson and Jack Hannahan are great guys, but they ain't that guy.

It does seem that the synergy effect

is something that is given consideration at the highest levels of the FO. With that said, it does seem like you would be absolutely forced to make Defense First the clubhouse motto, even at the expense of offensive output.
To a point I think you're right, in that the only players they saw available were glove men, but I think they took that notion and ran a 2-3 year plan off of it, including pickups like Endy, Wilson and Kotchman at key positions on the diamond.
I guess where I come down is this: if they hadn't focused in on Kotchman as hard as they seemed to, I could agree with you that they were just getting what they could, when they could. But the Kotchman acquisition just SCREAMS to me that their primary concern is defense. Last year they plugged an easy-to-fill-with-random-slugger LF with Endy, this year they plugged and easier-to-fill-with-random-slugger 1B with this generation's (wannabe) Doug Mientkiewicz.

Good pernt

What do they do on days the SS rests?
Figgins directs traffic, I spose.
How bad can it be... last year before the Clement trade, the M's had a train wreck at SS, and still ran scintillating DER's...

Kotchman was plan B ...

My memory is that the club offered Branyan a deal - which BRANYAN turned down -- asking for two years.
Also - Kotchman was NOT a free agent signing. Kotchman was a trade of Bill Hall, (who had a fairly onerous contract), and (IMO), is beyond hope for reclaiming his career.
The problem with a TRADED player is you have to take into account BOTH sides of the deal. When you get Cliff Lee - it's VERY obvious you were really, really after Cliff Lee. When you trade Silva for Bradley, it ain't so obvious that you were swooning over Bradley.
Hall for Kotchman does NOT scream the club valued Kotchman way above the rest of the field. It tells me that Z was looking for a club that had a 1B worthless to them - who would be interested in a backup multi-position player that was of no use to Seattle.
The fact that they go out and snag Garko immediately after Kotchman to me SCREAMS that they were hedging their bets with Kotchman from the get-go.
But -- all that aside -- my point is that there are there are THREE levels of defensive value to consider -- it's not binary. Are they plus defensively? Are they a defensive liability? Or, or they defensively neutral. My point was that saying "we won't settle for a defensive LIABILITY" is not the same as saying "we demand defensive excellence."
Yuni was traded away. Lopez wasn't. Who do you think had more value on the open market?
Heck, in 2009 Branyan was no defensive wonderkind. Nor was Sweeney. In 2009, Z specifically did NOT demand defensive wizardry from the 1B position.
I think Z would be very much against adding Adam Dunn - because Dunn is a major defensive liability, (unless he was to be a DH-only).
What *I* see with Kotchman is a young (under 30) player, who was once upon a time a HIGHLY regarded spec, who got shoved aside for the new flavor. Yes, he's great defensively, like Gut. But, Gut is still with the team and Endy Chavez is not. (Yeah, the injury complicates the picture). But, it is EASY to focus on the one variable that supports a view (defense), while ignoring all the other variables in play, (salary, age, previous peak, previous PT, etc., etc., etc.).

Thanks for the correction

On the Kotchman acquisition.
Z's comment at the time he was acquired was, 'We looked at our 1B options and this is the way we wanted to go', or something to that effect.
It was clear from the Branyan offer that the M's were not going to loosen the purse strings much for an offense-first guy with a dodgy back.
Bill Hall was a player Z liked a fair amount, he knew him from the Brewers. Kotchman also was a player Z had had a fondness for since that draft where he was picked by the Angels.
As a value add, as being more the type of player the M's want to build with, as being what they perceive to be one of their best options at 1B, as not requiring that they give up much in terms of cash or prospects, Kotchman is who they *targeted*.
Point taken that the M's aren't unwilling to field an average defender. Clearly they are willing. But is there another MLB team out there that seems *less willing* to field a player that is less than excellent? Statistically they were one of the worst offenses out there last year. They are setting the bar in this regard. The blogosphere is just reacting to that IMO.

Bavasi's Offense

What three spots did Z go outside of org to fill during 2009?
CF - Reed replaced by Gut -- VAST improvement in offense.
1B - Branyan replaced Sexson/Lahair -- VAST improvement in offense.
DH - Griffey/Sweeney replaced Vidro -- VAST improvement in offense.
The dreadful performance of the offese in 2009 was "primarily" a result of offensive holdovers from the Bavasi era. Beltre, Yuni, Wlad were all miserable. Yuni and Wlad didn't survive the season.
Reed was considered a defense-first CF. Z didn't get Gut to upgrade the defense - he got Gut to upgrade the offense. He just happened to upgrade both at the same time.
As for Hall. Maybe Z liked Hall. But, he certainly didn't like his Vidro-esque contract.
As for what Z "says" in public. I treat him the same way I treat every phrase by every GM -- "posturing". Maybe Z is more forth-coming than some GMs, but most of what is said in public is for the benefit of the players and other GMs ... to allow him to continue to do business effectively. Any resemblence to the actual truth is generally coincidental.

We're in basic agreement here

At least I think so, with regards to this team's current strategy w/r/t acquiring players and roster management. It's more holistic than 'The only thing we care about is defense'.
But we differ in our views on a few things.
First off, I take Z basically at his word. Of course he's careful about what he says publicly, as any competent leader in a high-profile position would. But to say that what he says resembles the truth only coincidentally, that's quite an exaggeration. I can't think of one thing he's said that is even marginally untruthful, to our knowledge.
Second, the argument that he replaced Reed, Sexson, and Vidro with better offensive players and therefore defense is not a mandate --- doesn't hold water. Any replacement of those three by a competent GM would have been a significant offensive upgrade.
It's splitting hairs a bit, but it's backed up by what the org has said their strategy is. They didn't say, 'Gutierrez is a good offensive player, and - bonus! - he's a great defender'. They said, 'Gutierrez is the best defensive CF in the game, and - bonus! - he's a pretty good batter'.
The FO has been very specific and clear about what their strategy is. They will work to improve the offense, *so long as the defense doesn't suffer as a result*.

I tend to agree with Sandy

The core question is whether management primarily makes decisions based on organizational philosophy or primarily based on whether the move makes the team better. With regard to the 25 man roster, I think it is the latter that dominates. In aggregate, they think Kotchman will be a better, more reliable player in 2010 than Branyan. Will they be correct? I don't know, but they've made their call (I would speculate largely for health reasons, but what do I know?).
With regard to the draft and international free agents, I think organizational philosophy does become an important criteria. If they were pre-occupied with defense and grace on the field, why would they have drafted Poythress? And why would Z have drafted Braun and Fielder while in Milwaukee? Investing top resources in a LF and 1B is not traditional draft strategy.

fair enough

I agree - we aren't that far apart.
I will concede that my comment on GM-speak may be a bit hyperbolic. But, did the club say that they got Gut because he was a great defender in public because that is what they wanted -- or did they say it to send a signal to the hoarde of lollygaggers who had been sleep-defending in 2008 that they better wakeup?
My point is not that GMs lie: (the outright lie will almost always come back and bite you). My point is that what they say in public is almost always for EFFECT. It is for the benefit of those listening, which include the media, the fans, and the players.
So, having established that your club UBER-values defense, when Washington calls up to see if you have any interest in Dunn -- you can (in theory) USE that position to drive the price down.
Prior to Milton Bradley, every move had been someone who was viewed as a "great clubhouse guy". You don't think Z utilized that to his advantage?
Posturing is part of the GM job description.
Me? I think Z believes in good defense. But, I think he has purposefully hyped that position in order to scare the deadweight defensive players in the organization to rid themselves of the notion of veteran entitlement from the previous regime. And, in order to maintain his gains, he cannot move "radically" away from the stance w/o undoing the good.
But, I think he'd jump at a cheap big bat who was defensively neutral, should one appear.

As I recall I don't think the

As I recall I don't think the Ms saved much money in that deal (maybe 500K).
If it was purely a dump of Hall, they didn't need to take Kotchman back.