Let's assume...

[davearm]

May be true but not what I'm getting at.

I'm saying some teams have shifted more towards offensive players with less defensive skill at the skill positions like SS and 2B while other teams retain more traditional defensive and less offensive type players at these skill positions. You have a wide variation of offensive versus defensive skills at the skill positions. The higher OPS players particularly at SS - Jeter, Tejada, H. Ramirez etc. will have significantly weaker defensive skills than their counterparts.

The Higher OPS players in the OF/1B will have less offensive to defensive skill variations. i.e they will not be signifcantly less than their counterparts (on average).

Of course there are exceptions.

Finally, defensive contributions/deficiencies at the skill positions have more value than defensive skills at the non-skill positions.

The last statement I can agree with. Defensive ability is magnified at spots like SS and CF, and somewhat less important in LF or at 1B. And that's obviously why guys that can really hit but lack the overall athleticism needed to play a skill position migrate to spots like LF and 1B.

But that in no way leads to the conclusion that if you're athletic enough to play SS or CF, then therefore you must not be able to hit like a LF or 1B. That's just silly.

By and large, teams evaluate players much the same way today as they ever have. As a simplification, a guy's total contribution is a function of his defensive ability plus his offensive ability. A little more in one area can offset a little less in the other.

The change has been that teams no longer find it acceptable to have a <600 OPS bat playing SS, no matter how good the defense is -- the relative importance (or weight) teams place on defense versus offense has evolved over time. The result of that change is that now a Hanley Ramirez type is more viable as a SS, and a Mike Bordick type is less viable.

[El Gordo]

You've yet to establish any sort of causation for any of this.

You've asserted...

The best athletes play skill positions (CF and MI).

The best hitters don't play skill positions (corner IF and OF).

So being the best athlete makes you a worse hitter than a lesser athete?

That makes zero sense.

I have no idea what you are talking about but if you want to name the best hitters off the top of your head you would probably say Pujols, ARod, MCab, Feilder, Howard, Ortiz, Manny,Vlad, HanRam, Holliday; only one MI among them and he's one the worst fielding SS in MLB. The best hitters aren't not among the top skill positions. If I want to improve my offense and I have holes at LF, DH, SS, CF, and 3B I will have a better chance of finding improvements in the non skill positions.

[davearm]

I have no idea what you are talking about but if you want to name the best hitters off the top of your head you would probably say Pujols, ARod, MCab, Feilder, Howard, Ortiz, Manny,Vlad, HanRam, Holliday; only one MI among them and he's one the worst fielding SS in MLB. The best hitters aren't not among the top skill positions. If I want to improve my offense and I have holes at LF, DH, SS, CF, and 3B I will have a better chance of finding improvements in the non skill positions.

While that's all true, it's not because being a great enough athlete to play MI precludes you from being a phenomenal hitter.

It's because the best hitters aren't good enough athletes to play MI. They tend to be too big and strong to have the quickness and reflexes those more demanding positions require.

Believe me, if the Cards could play Pujols at SS, I'm sure they'd love to.

[os1971]

You've yet to establish any sort of causation for any of this.

You've asserted...

The best athletes play skill positions (CF and MI).

The best hitters don't play skill positions (corner IF and OF).

So being the best athlete makes you a worse hitter than a lesser athete?

That makes zero sense.

Makes sense:

1. The best hitters (using OPS) usually project power. The majority of these are at the non-skill positions.

2. CF and MI require skills like speed and lateral movement.

3. The skillsets are often not compatable.

[os1971]

The last statement I can agree with. Defensive ability is magnified at spots like SS and CF, and somewhat less important in LF or at 1B. And that's obviously why guys that can really hit but lack the overall athleticism needed to play a skill position migrate to spots like LF and 1B.

But that in no way leads to the conclusion that if you're athletic enough to play SS or CF, then therefore you must not be able to hit like a LF or 1B. That's just silly.

By and large, teams evaluate players much the same way today as they ever have. As a simplification, a guy's total contribution is a function of his defensive ability plus his offensive ability. A little more in one area can offset a little less in the other.

The change has been that teams no longer find it acceptable to have a <600 OPS bat playing SS, no matter how good the defense is -- the relative importance (or weight) teams place on defense versus offense has evolved over time. The result of that change is that now a Hanley Ramirez type is more viable as a SS, and a Mike Bordick type is less viable.

But that in no way leads to the conclusion that if you're athletic enough to play SS or CF, then therefore you must not be able to hit like a LF or 1B. That's just silly.

I didn't draw that as a conclusion. I'm simply observing the distribution and availability of talent.

The change has been that teams no longer find it acceptable to have a <600 OPS bat playing SS, no matter how good the defense is -- the relative importance (or weight) teams place on defense versus offense has evolved over time. The result of that change is that now a Hanley Ramirez type is more viable as a SS, and a Mike Bordick type is less viable

True, but you can't look at only as a player to player comparison and you've provided an extreme comparison as an example. Its more complex than that. There are lots of other factors to look at: Overall team architecture, Speed, salary structure, relative value, contract status, pitching staff characterstics etc etc.

[nyjimbo]

With our young pitching Defense should be the #1 thing we should be looking for in a SS. If we improved our LF,1B,3B offense I could live with a Fahey/Hernandez type. This is the reason Rowell while drafted as a SS was moved to 3B, and may eventually go to 1B. Middle infielders have to play defense first. Tejada a few years ago was decent. Now he is below average IMO.

[wildcard]

I have to believe that this was hashed out before MacPhail accepted the job. Realistically, how much worse can attendance fall off in 2009 if the Orioles lose 100 games in 2008, instead of 88?

You have to bank on turning attendance around in 2010 or 2011 as the new, younger Orioles team (hopefully) begins to rise in the standings.

I doubt that Peter brought in McPhail expecting to lose 100 games. Can McPhail prepare Peter for it. Maybe, maybe not. But he better not surprise him with it.

[wildcard]

It wouldn't surprise me to see attendence jump with the additon of young, exciting, hungry players even if the team loses 100 games.

The fans would welcome the change. This team has become boring and predictable.

PA doesn't give the fans of Baltimore enough credit for their baseball knowledge. We don't need a bunch of "name" players / old vets to appreciate the team.

I doubt that a young team that loses 100 games will drawn better. The guys on the board may go to more games but overall people support a winner.

[Frobby]

I doubt that a young team that loses 100 games will drawn better. The guys on the board may go to more games but overall people support a winner.

Not a chance it draws better. Especially this year when a lot of fans who live equidistant or closer to DC will want to go see their new stadium.

[wildcard]

This is a concept that so many people seem to struggle with.

A 900 OPS SS playing with a 700 OPS LF is going to generate the same number of runs as is a 700 OPS SS playing with a 900 OPS LF.

Now everybody realizes that 900 OPS LFs are more plentiful than 900 OPS SSs. But that's not the point.

The bottom line is, where the 9 guys in your lineup stand when it's time to play the field has no bearing on that group's offensive output.

But the goal is not to have a 700 OPS at any position.

[66-70-83-??]

I doubt that a young team that loses 100 games will drawn better. The guys on the board may go to more games but overall people support a winner.

I doubt it too. But, it is possible.

That is why I used the term- it wouldn't surprise me.......

I point is that I believe the fanbase has become totally bored with this team.

It has been in a rut with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Now, instead of PA blowing smoke up our ____'s and the annual B&F/F&D GM-Speak "we are evaluating the process blah blah blah"....... all of a sudden we have a well respected GM making meaningful moves and infusing the much needed youth into the organization.

I believe it is possible that the fanbase gets energized by it and gets behind supporting the new baby birds.

[Black & Orange]

I'd try and swing a deal with Texas for Elvis Andrus. He's blocked by Michael Young and I could see a DCab + Millar package bringing him and a lower scale pitching prospect back.

I'd go with that.

[NewMarketSean]

We'd have to get a SS back in one of these trades. I would deal Tejada to Anaheim for Wood straight up.

Bedard is where I'd try to get the good young talent.

But if we didn't get a SS back I would put Luis Hernandez on the roster no matter what and try to sign a MiL free agent like Don Kelly, J.J. Furmaniak, Antonio Perez. I know thats not the SS for the future but I would continue to look for SS in the draft and trades when they come along.

[davearm]

But the goal is not to have a 700 OPS at any position.

Completely not the point.

[Sports Guy]

This is a stupid argument...Bottom line is we should be trying to get the best talent we can for positions of need.

Having a no power, slap hitting, no walking above average defender at SS is just flat out stupid. There is no justification for it when there are so many other better options out there.

So, that is what we need to do...Get one of those better options.