How about this guy for SS?

[RShack]

Well, damn. We were actually starting to have a conversation about baseball, including different views about the significance of SS-D in '08.

But it didn't last long. Before you know it:

• Somebody starts calling others "dense";
  
• SG keeps repeating that better replacements are a dime a dozen, even though he can't list any;
  
• SG is dismissing the opinions of those who disagree as "having nothing to do with anything";
  
• Mackus jumps in by insisting that LH is unquestionably a terrible SS and better guys can be had for nothing.

Oh, well. Same old, same old. I guess we should just repeat the same trade ideas another hundred times, and periodically bash LH when we come up for air. I've been having some good email conversations with a couple folks about interesting things, too bad it can't happen here. Too bad it has to deteriorate into the same old dogmatic rants.

[Sports Guy]

Well, damn. We were actually starting to have a conversation about baseball, including different views about the significance of SS-D in '08.

But it didn't last long. Before you know it:

• Somebody starts calling others "dense";
• SG keeps repeating that better replacements are a dime a dozen, even though he can't list any;
• SG is dismissing the opinions of those who disagree as "having nothing to do with anything";
• Mackus jumps in by insisting that LH is unquestionably a terrible SS and better guys can be had for nothing.

Oh, well. Same old, same old. I guess we should just repeat the same trade ideas another hundred times, and periodically bash LH when we come up for air. I've been having some good email conversations with a couple folks about interesting things, too bad it can't happen here. Too bad it has to deteriorate into the same old dogmatic rants.

The SS guys have already been listed...No need to keep rehashing the same list.

And when anyone has a baseball conversation or shows stats to back it up, you and El Gordo are coming up with your own theories and reasons they aren't true.

It really doesn't matter what anyone says...You think he is ok because the Orioles and other teams have won with no hit SS...You think he is ok because DT says so and because you believe he is great defensively(or whatever superlative you want to use).

That's basically your argument...No matter what stats are shown or anything like that, you dismiss them.

[RShack]

The SS guys have already been listed...No need to keep rehashing the same list.

And when anyone has a baseball conversation or shows stats to back it up, you and El Gordo are coming up with your own theories and reasons they aren't true.

It really doesn't matter what anyone says...You think he is ok because the Orioles and other teams have won with no hit SS...You think he is ok because DT says so and because you believe he is great defensively(or whatever superlative you want to use).

That's basically your argument...No matter what stats are shown or anything like that, you dismiss them.

Sure thing, SG. You're exactly right, just like always.

So, let's quit even trying to talk about baseball. No point in that.

Instead, let's dream up a 3-way fantasy trade!

[Sports Guy]

Sure thing, SG. You're exactly right, just like always.

So, let's quit even trying to talk about baseball. No point in that.

Instead, let's dream up a 3-way fantasy trade!

LOL...For you to say anyone isn't talking baseball is really rich!

85% of your posts are total bs and have nothing to do with the given thread.

And we are talking baseball btw...Clearly by talking about the things I mentioned, baseball is obvious the overall theme.

What you have done with your recent posts is not talking baseball.

[Tony-OH]

Back to the subject of the thread guys and stay away from taking shots at each other.

[clarence]

Unless we can go out and find a true "shortstop for the future" this offseason, who cares who starts at short? With our staff, I would much rather have a no-hit guy who can field above average than the other way around. We aren't trying to compete next season so I don't understand why there is so much fuss over LH. You think he is going to be the reason we aren't a .500 club? We need our young pitching to put up the best possible numbers so that we can then look at dealing one of them for our TRUE future shortstop, not some minor league AAAA retread. We have enough of those types so why give up anything to bring in another one. I want defense at shortstop this season, I could care less about the stick.

[theobird]

Unless we can go out and find a true "shortstop for the future" this offseason, who cares who starts at short? With our staff, I would much rather have a no-hit guy who can field above average than the other way around. We aren't trying to compete next season so I don't understand why there is so much fuss over LH. You think he is going to be the reason we aren't a .500 club? We need our young pitching to put up the best possible numbers so that we can then look at dealing one of them for our TRUE future shortstop, not some minor league AAAA retread. We have enough of those types so why give up anything to bring in another one. I want defense at shortstop this season, I could care less about the stick.

Ahmen. And thank you very much.

[Mackus]

Unless we can go out and find a true "shortstop for the future" this offseason, who cares who starts at short? With our staff, I would much rather have a no-hit guy who can field above average than the other way around. We aren't trying to compete next season so I don't understand why there is so much fuss over LH. You think he is going to be the reason we aren't a .500 club? We need our young pitching to put up the best possible numbers so that we can then look at dealing one of them for our TRUE future shortstop, not some minor league AAAA retread. We have enough of those types so why give up anything to bring in another one. I want defense at shortstop this season, I could care less about the stick.

The problem with Hernandez is that we can find a better player without having to give up anything other than a MLC and a ST invite. I'll gladly downgrade from Hernandez' "legendary" defense to an average or slightly above defender who can hit better than most pitchers.

It doesn't really matter, and any upgrade we get from Hernandez will only make us a win or two better at absolute most. But my problem with going with Hernandez is that its an incredibly lazy and, in my opinion, dishonest choice. Its akin to tanking, which isn't something I want to do. If you can upgrade for free at any position, you do it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hernandez has the best glove of any of the cheap options available, but I'd be absolutely shocked if anybody had a worse bat. And there is almost no chance that Hernandez is the best "overall package" of the players we could bring in to play SS.

He is most likely the best option within the organization (I'm not 100% convinced he'd be a better option that Bynum, Mora, or Fahey, but he probably is) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go out and find somebody better.

[clarence]

If we can add a free piece that can play a better ss (or any position for that matter) I'm all for it. I just think that with Bedard and BRob still around, it is a little early for all the fighting about LH and what it means that he is our starting ss. Trembley can say what he wants (and has too) in the media, but everyone on here knows good and well that he wants a better ss than LH on opening day. I guess the arguing over this topic just seems a little premature and odd to me.

[66-70-83-??]

About Brendan Ryan.

BBHQ rated him as the Cardinals 13th best prospect in 2006. This is what they had to say:

He was rated as their 7th best prospect three years ago:

Here are some other quotes about him from BBHQ:

Is Brendan Ryan the long-term answer at SS for the Baltimore Orioles. Absolutely not. Would he be a viable 2008 option? Definitely. Would I rather start him at SS than LH? Based on the little that I really know about Ryan (and about LH for that matter), yes - depending, of course, on what I'd have to give up to get him. One other advantage he might give you - his abilities as a UTI.

I suggested Ryan (w/ Rasmus) for Bedard several times over the last month or so.

With Eckstein gone, Ryan is listed as the starting SS on the STL depth chart.

They did sign Cesar Izturis to compete with him, though.

I like Ryan.

If STL is interested in Bedard, they have enough to get him.

A package of Rasmus, Ryan, Perez/Garcia stacks up well with SEA and CIN.

[RShack]

Next, I looked at THT's Revised Zone Rating. I extrapolated each to 350 balls hit into the SS zone. The first number represents the total balls that would be fielded of the 350 hit into the zone. The second number represents the total balls fielded outside of the zone per 350 balls hit into the zone (hope that makes sense). The number in parantheses represents the total number of balls fielded:

LH - 326 / 57 (383)

Hu - 298 / 18 (316)

Cedeno - 286 / 53 (339)

Ryan - 276 / 68 (344)

Aybar - 252 / 56 (308)

OK, so what's a quick-and-dirty (and more-or-less fair) way to turn this into runs permitted/saved for each guy, assuming 150 games/year? Or even just putouts?

[El Gordo]

Reference the MiLB free agents that were mentioned. It certainly wouldn't hurt to give ST invites to the one or two most promising still remaining (I'd look primarily for offense from these guys, provided his defense is decent potential). Having said that, after a quick glance I'm not impressed with the names on that one list. I do like the idea of bringing in the guy mentioned in the opening post to fill a spot on the Bowie roster.

Given a choice between LH, Bynum, and Mora, I'd probably give the job to LH - primarily because of concerns with the defensive abilities of Bynum and Mora.

As for other options, I'd hope that the potential Bedard or Roberts trade brings in a potential option. To that end, I did a real quick (in other words, read as much or as little into as your belief system allows) comparison of LH to Ronny Cedeno, Chin-Lung Hu, Erick Aybar, and Brendan Ryan (a name which will surely surprise some of you).

First, compare them offensively. These are the career OBP and SLG for each at the major league level (warning - small sample size alert!). I also did the little trick I did earlier in the thread to guesstimate how many runs each would create over the course of 450 ABs.

Ryan - 347 / 406 / 63

Hu - 241 / 517 / 56

LH - 300 / 362 / 49

Cedeno - 277 / 349 / 44

Aybar - 279 / 289 / 36

Next, I did the same thing using the Bill James 2008 projection for each (actually, he didn't have a projection for Cedeno, so I used the one from BBHQ).

Cedeno - 314 / 421 / 59

Hu - 326 / 402 / 59

Ryan - 319 / 348 / 50

Aybar - 293 / 349 / 46

LH - 282 / 296 / 38

Using actual career results, LH would have to be 8 runs better than Hu, and 15 runs better than Ryan defensively to make him the better choice. Using 2008 projections he'd have to be 22 runs better defensively than Cedeno or Hu to be the better choice (not to mention that Cedeno and Hu figure to be more long-term solutions). He'd have to be 13 runs better than Ryan and 9 runs better than Aybar. Whether you believe defense can be measured in runs or not, you have to admit that 15 or 22 runs is a lot of runs to make up defensively.

Speaking of defense, this is how each rates for his brief MLB career in BP's Fielding Runs:

Hu - 113 in 70 innings

Ryan - 111 in 163 innings

LH - 107 in 139 innings

Cedeno - 98 in 1,397 innings (101 in his one shot at extended playing time)

Aybar - 77 in 154 innings

Next, I looked at THT's Revised Zone Rating. I extrapolated each to 350 balls hit into the SS zone. The first number represents the total balls that would be fielded of the 350 hit into the zone. The second number represents the total balls fielded outside of the zone per 350 balls hit into the zone (hope that makes sense). The number in parantheses represents the total number of balls fielded:

LH - 326 / 57 (383)

Hu - 298 / 18 (316)

Cedeno - 286 / 53 (339)

Ryan - 276 / 68 (344)

Aybar - 252 / 56 (308)

The problem with the names mentioned is that you'd have to convince the current GM of each to trade him to you in a deal fair to both sides - which figures to be especially tough in regards to Hu (a top prospect), Aybar (LAA's potential 2008 starter), and Cedeno (davearm tells us he's the favorite to be their primary UTI next season). The easiest of these to acquire might just be Ryan (maybe Migrant Redbird can help us on that one).

I'll tell you more about Ryan in my next post.

By the way, after looking at all of the numbers I'm really liking Ryan. I'm also really glad they didn't complete the Tejada to LAA deal that was talked about so much last year.

Again, all of these numbers represent extremely small sample sizes.

Please note that I'm not necessarily putting a lot of credence in these numbers. I simply posted them in an attempt to further the discussion.

Ryan looks good but the age is a bit of a problem at 26. Hu would be my first choice all around. But what surprises me is how LH doesn't exactly look like chopped liver in these numbers. I never promoted him as a long term solution over a trade prospect like Hu or Cedeno, Truinfel, Brignac, etc. but to me your numbers make him more attractive as a short term stop gap if a longterm SS can't be traded for.

[RShack]

About Brendan Ryan.

Inconsistent defense may push him to utility role...

Weaknesses: ... Defensive consistency... he makes more errors than you'd want.

he's unlikely to develop into a MLB regular...

Is Brendan Ryan the long-term answer at SS for the Baltimore Orioles. Absolutely not. Would he be a viable 2008 option? Definitely.

Well, this goes back to your view that all runs are created equal, and that one should accept less-than-excellent-D as long as the OPS compensates. While that assumption is certainly rational, it's not the only rational view, and therefore it's a debatable point. It seems pretty clear that AM/DT don't subscribe to that view. They want good-D to support the pitchers. So, I think any viable candidates need to satisfy that basic requirement, and this guy appears to not do that.

There's really 2 different questions here:

• 1. Is it really correct to assume that all SS-related runs are equal? At the extreme, saying "yes" means that it's fine to have a very-bad-D SS if he just hits enough to compensate for routine defensive butchery. At a less-extreme level, it means that AM/DT should be unwilling to pay any net-SS-runs penalty whatsoever to get the good-SS-D they want. This is a topic unto itself, apart from whatever players are the pawns in the argument.
• 2. Given that it appears that AM/DT may be willing to pay some net-SS-runs penalty in order to get excellent SS-D, then what candidates might give them what they want at the lowest net-runs cost, or ideally at some net-runs gain while providing excellent-D?

I wish we could separate these two questions into the two issues they really are. There's no point in suggesting guys that are not anybody they'd choose. So, can we separate these 2 things out, and focus on what guys might meet the actual job requirements rather than proposing guys that don't? Whether or not it's reasonable to place a priority on excellent-SS-D as a basic job requirement for SS is really a different question, and we might get farther if we treated it that way.

[RShack]

In terms of the fielding runs debate, I'm not well versed enough in the particulars to go much further than I have.

The only argument I can make is that people who are a lot smarter than me (Pete Palmer, Bill James, the folks at BP, Tom Tango, etc) seem to be absolutely convinced you can make that type O vs D comparison. Quite frankly, if it's good enough for them, then it is certainly good enough for me.

I'm not challenging the idea of quick-and-dirty calc's that turn D into runs. To the contrary, I'm *trying* to play along. If you can't turn balls-he-gets-to into either runs or putouts, then I don't know how you can surmise that his range isn't worth it. If we're gonna decide that his good-range-D isn't worth it, let's at least figure out how much not-worth-it it is ;-)

So, if we don't have a ready-made trick, let's just think about inventing one that's more-or-less fair, shall we? Taking those balls-gotten-to numbers you provided, how might we translate that into putouts (or total-bases-saved or whatever)? How does this sound?: Take whatever the average number of chances-per-year that SS's get and whatever the baseline number is of balls-gotten-to-out-of-350, and then simply extrapolate, giving total number of projected chances for each guy for 150 games (or whatever). Then multiply by fielding pct to get putouts. Would that be more-or-less fair? Do we know what the average chances-per-year is for SS? Do we know what is considered avg for the 350-balls rating you provided.

[RShack]

I appreciate that you're playing along. The problem is that it probably doesn't bother me as much as some others that he may end up as the SS next season. Therefore, I don't know if I have the desire to spend the time researching this. Besides, I'm a pitching guy, not a fielding stats guy.

I did actually begin to do some research, but quite honestly, it gave me a headache (well, this sinus infection isn't exactly helping). I'm hoping someone like Baltimoron or Drungo will jump in on the discussion.

OK. While we're waiting to see if that happens, would you agree with the following?

• LH's range converts to X-additional outs for the Bad Guys. (We don't know how to say what X is right now, but it's something.)
• Same thing with the other guys you listed, either plus or minus, depending on their range.
• Compared to each one of the other guys, LH is worth Y additional outs for the Bad Guys.
• If runs are runs (regardless of whether on O or D), then isn't it fair to say that outs are outs?
• So if LH generates Y additional outs for the Bad Guys compared to each of the other guys, isn't it fair to factor that in by just calling them even on D and then factoring in the difference in outs by a corresponding increase in LH's OBP?

Did I just say anything that's either unfair or stupid? ;-)