Let's assume...

[os1971]

I'm not saying we need to get above average production at every position, all I'm saying is there is no need your big bats at specific positions. Since you two are having trouble understanding what I'm saying, I'll exit this conversation.

I understand actually what your saying. What I and El Gordo are saying is easier to get the offensive production the traditional way. Guys like Tejada (in his prime ) are great but they are few and far between.

Heres what you said:

It doesn't matter where the good offensive players play, just that you have good offensive players relative to their position average.

I disagree. Not to mention this analysis ignores the relative defensive contributions, particularly at the skill positions.

[davearm]

I'm not saying we need to get above average production at every position, all I'm saying is there is no need your big bats at specific positions. Since you two are having trouble understanding what I'm saying, I'll exit this conversation.

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.

[El Gordo]

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.

Right, and if you need to upgrade your offense you say, "I'm gonna go out and look for a power hitting SS and 2B to hit me 30-40 HR's. I'll have to turn over some rocks to find them, but never mind, pay no attention to those 1B,LF,DH's growing on those trees. It doesn't matter where the offense comes from. I think I got it now.

[os1971]

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.

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

Actually that is the central point of the counter argument.

...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

Very true, but in practicality assembling a team with players at a relatively high OPS at every position will be more difficult.

Additionally, a relatively high OPS at a skill positions like SS will less often correlate with good defensive capability.

[davearm]

Right, and if you need to upgrade your offense you say, "I'm gonna go out and look for a power hitting SS and 2B to hit me 30-40 HR's. I'll have to turn over some rocks to find them, but never mind, pay no attention to those 1B,LF,DH's growing on those trees. It doesn't matter where the offense comes from. I think I got it now.

If you had zero players on your roster, you might take that approach.

But nobody starts with zero players on their roster.

In the O's case, they've already got their leadoff and #3 positions covered by their MIs. That affords them the luxury of getting below average production from the traditional power positions, while still fielding an average or better offense.

Some other team that's committed to Omar Vizquel at SS and Orlando Hudson at 2B needs to approach their corner spots differently, and by necessity must get 100% of their middle-of-the-order production from those spots.

The bottom line is that this issue cannot be viewed in a vaccuum, as many people seem to do.

[davearm]

Actually that is the central point of the counter argument.

Very true, but in practicality assembling a team with players at a relatively high OPS at every position will be more difficult.

Additionally, a relatively high OPS at a skill positions like SS will less often correlate with good defensive capability.

You don't need relatively high OPS at every position.

You need a cumulative OPS across the entire lineup that's strong. The combination of players that gets you there, and especially the positions they play in the field, is wholly irrelevant.

And why, pray tell, would being very good at the offensive element of baseball preclude one from also being very good at the defensive element of baseball? Seems to me that the opposite is true. If you possess the natural talent needed to be an elite hitter, you quite likely have a leg up on everyone else when it comes to fielding and throwing too. Often times guys end up playing shortstop expressly because they are the best athletes on the field, do they not?

[El Gordo]

If you had zero players on your roster, you might take that approach.

But nobody starts with zero players on their roster.

In the O's case, they've already got their leadoff and #3 positions covered by their MIs. That affords them the luxury of getting below average production from the traditional power positions, while still fielding an average or better offense.

Some other team that's committed to Omar Vizquel at SS and Orlando Hudson at 2B needs to approach their corner spots differently, and by necessity must get 100% of their middle-of-the-order production from those spots.

The bottom line is that this issue cannot be viewed in a vaccuum, as many people seem to do.

I don't get your point. You are saying we have a good 2B and a good RF so we can afford to put up with .650 OPS LF, a .750 OPS DH, a .750 OPS 3B, a .700, OPS C, and A .690 OPS CF, if we get an .800 + OPS SS? If the O's want to upgrade their offense which is the better target, Kemp or Hu.

[El Gordo]

You don't need relatively high OPS at every position.

You need a cumulative OPS across the entire lineup that's strong. The combination of players that gets you there, and especially the positions they play in the field, is wholly irrelevant.

And why, pray tell, would being very good at the offensive element of baseball preclude one from also being very good at the defensive element of baseball? Seems to me that the opposite is true. If you possess the natural talent needed to be an elite hitter, you quite likely have a leg up on everyone else when it comes to fielding and throwing too. Often times guys end up playing shortstop expressly because they are the best athletes on the field, do they not?

Right, pay no attention to HanRam's defense nor Giambi's, Manny's, Ortiz',etc. Jeter had one of the highest OPS at SS and he won a GG last year. Surely you jest.

[os1971]

You don't need relatively high OPS at every position.

You need a cumulative OPS across the entire lineup that's strong. The combination of players that gets you there, and especially the positions they play in the field, is wholly irrelevant.

And why, pray tell, would being very good at the offensive element of baseball preclude one from also being very good at the defensive element of baseball? Seems to me that the opposite is true. If you possess the natural talent needed to be an elite hitter, you quite likely have a leg up on everyone else when it comes to fielding and throwing too. Often times guys end up playing shortstop expressly because they are the best athletes on the field, do they not?

You don't need relatively high OPS at every position.

You need a cumulative OPS across the entire lineup that's strong. The combination of players that gets you there.....

I agree.

And why, pray tell, would being very good at the offensive element of baseball preclude one from also being very good at the defensive element of baseball? Seems to me that the opposite is true. If you possess the natural talent needed to be an elite hitter, you quite likely have a leg up on everyone else when it comes to fielding and throwing too. Often times guys end up playing shortstop expressly because they are the best athletes on the field, do they not?

While Its true that a SS may be the best overall athlete, hes not necessarily the best defensive player at his position.

1. Lets take SS and 2B for example. It would be my observation (and I don't have any data to back this up) that the higher OPS players at these positons would correlate with lower to significantly lower than average defense at that position.

2. If you took the top OF and 1B OPS players, the defense to offensive would have less variation with other players at that position.

3. Defensive contributions/deficiencies have more importance at the skill positions.

[davearm]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here.

Are you saying that a guy that's a phenomenal hitter can make it in the bigleagues even if he's just barely passable in the field, but a guy that's only OK with the bat has to be exceptional in the field to stick?

Because I can agree with that.

What I can't agree with is the notion that if you and I were to walk out to the ballfield tomorrow and find that you're a tremendous hitter, and I'm just an OK hitter, then we should expect me to be a better fielder than you. That's obviously nonsense. Many of the same characteristics that make you a better hitter will probably make you a better fielder, too.

[El Gordo]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here.

Are you saying that a guy that's a phenomenal hitter can make it in the bigleagues even if he's just barely passable in the field, but a guy that's only OK with the bat has to be exceptional in the field to stick?

Because I can agree with that.

What I can't agree with is the notion that if you and I were to walk out to the ballfield tomorrow and find that you're a tremendous hitter, and I'm just an OK hitter, then we should expect me to be a better fielder than you. That's obviously nonsense. Many of the same characteristics that make you a better hitter will probably make you a better fielder, too.

The best atheletes play the most demanding skill positions. That's SS, 2B, and CF( C is a different kettle of fish). The best hitters won't be found at those positions. Yes you'll find some good ones there, but not the very best. Who are the best hitters? Check out ML 1B, you'll find 7 900+ OPS hitters there.

[os1971]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here.

Are you saying that a guy that's a phenomenal hitter can make it in the bigleagues even if he's just barely passable in the field, but a guy that's only OK with the bat has to be exceptional in the field to stick?

Because I can agree with that.

What I can't agree with is the notion that if you and I were to walk out to the ballfield tomorrow and find that you're a tremendous hitter, and I'm just an OK hitter, then we should expect me to be a better fielder than you. That's obviously nonsense. Many of the same characteristics that make you a better hitter will probably make you a better fielder, too.

Are you saying that a guy that's a phenomenal hitter can make it in the bigleagues even if he's just barely passable in the field, but a guy that's only OK with the bat has to be exceptional in the field to stick?

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.

[os1971]

The best atheletes play the most demanding skill positions. That's SS, 2B, and CF( C is a different kettle of fish). The best hitters won't be found at those positions. Yes you'll find some good ones there, but not the very best. Who are the best hitters? Check out ML 1B, you'll find 7 900+ OPS hitters there.

Would you agree that the best hitters at the skill positions 2B/SS (mainly SS) would probably fall below average defensively as compared to their counterparts (I know there are exceptions like that guy in Colorado).

Maybe I have a communication deficiency.

[davearm]

The best atheletes play the most demanding skill positions. That's SS, 2B, and CF( C is a different kettle of fish). The best hitters won't be found at those positions. Yes you'll find some good ones there, but not the very best. Who are the best hitters? Check out ML 1B, you'll find 7 900+ OPS hitters there.

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.

[El Gordo]

Would you agree that the best hitters at the skill positions 2B/SS (mainly SS) would probably fall below average defensively as compared to their counterparts (I know there are exceptions like that guy in Colorado).

Maybe I have a communication deficiency.

7 of the top 10 hitting 2B are among the top ten Fielders according to the Fielding Bible. BRob #9 hitter #10 fielder. Only 3 of the top 10 hitting SS were among the top 10 fielders, Rollins, Tulo, and Wilson. Miggi was #8 among hitters, not among top 10 fielding SS. It's too late for me to figure out what that means.